The  Andover  Case 


C      A-^u^Lr 


THE  ANDOVER  CASE:    . 


Introductory   Historical   Statement; 


A   CAREFUL   SUMMARY   OF   THE 


ARGUiMENTS  OF  THE  RESPONDENT  PROFESSORS; 


AND  THE  FULL  TEXT  OF  THE 


ARGUMENTS  OF  THE  COMPLAINANTS 

AND   THEIR    COUNSEL, 


TOGETHER   AVITH   THE 


DECISION  OF  THE  BOARD  OF  VISITORS 


Flemishing  the  nearest  available  approach  to  a  Co?nplete 
history  of  the  uuhole  7natter. 


BOSTON : 

STANLEY  AND  USHER,  Publishers, 

171  Devonshire  Street. 

1887. 


Copyright,  1SS7, 
By  Stanley  &  Usher,  Boston,  Mass. 


CONTENTS 


ixtroductort  statement     

Historical  Statement 

Summary  of  the  Respondents"  Arguments 
Argument  of  Hon.  Asa  French  .... 
Argument  of  Eev.  J.  W.  "Wellman,  d.d. 
Argument  of  Rev.  O.  T.  Lanpheak,  d.d. 
Ahgujient  of  Rev.  II.  M.  Df.xter,  d.d.  . 
Closing  Argument  by  Hon.  E.  R.  Hoar 
The  Judgment  of  the  Visitors  .... 
Report  of  the  Trustees 


vu 

xvii 

3 

15 

78 

104 

17.5 

191 

193 


Mll??78 


INTEODUCTORY   STATEMENT. 


It  is  not  the  fault  of  the  complainants  in  the  recent- Andover  case 
that  a  complete  and  impartial  account  of  the  same,  including  the  en- 
tix-e  arguments  on  both  sides,  has  not,  long  since,  been  given  to  the 
public.  Immediately  after  the  conclusion  of  the  hearings,  the  chair- 
man of  the  committee  of  certain  of  the  alumni  was  approached  by 
one  of  the  professors,  and  subsequently  by  a  message  from  one  of 
the  trustees  of  the  seminary,  vrith  a  proposition  to  cooperate  in  such 
a  publication ;  to  which  he  readily  assented  on  the  basis  so  presented. 
Some  weeks  after,  this  proposition,  for  some  reason,  was  formally 
withdrawn.  For  the  convenience  of  the  Visitors,  however,  all  the 
arguments  on  both  sides  were  printed,  and  the  complainants  pub- 
lished a  small  edition  of  theirs,  which  was  soon  exhausted  and 
another  was  called  for.  Having  waited  some  months  in  vain  for  any 
further  movement  on  the  other  side  toward  a  joint  volume,  and  the 
public  interest  being  aroused  afresh  by  the  publication  of  the  de- 
cision of  the  Honorable  Board  of  Visitors,  the  committee  of  certain 
of  the  alumni  have  now  decided  to  reissue  the  arguments  on  their 
side  presented  to  that  Board,  prefaced  by  the  briefest  history  of  the 
case,  and  such  a  ytsurn''  of  the  pleadings  on  the  other  side  as  may  be 
helpful  in  enabling  those  unacquainted  with  the  facts  to  comprehend 
the  bearing  of  every  part,  appending  thereto  the  finding  of  the 
Visitors;  thus  bringing  within  the  reach  of  libraries  and  intelligent 
students  of  such  matters  all  the  materials  indispensable  to  some 
clear  comprehension  of  a  case  unique  in  the  annals  of  American 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  law  and  history. 

The  condensed  statement  of  the  defence  of  Professor  Smyth  and 
the  other  professors,  and  of  the  arguments  of  their  distinguished 
counsel,  which  follows,  has  been  prepared  by  the  author  of  the  report 
made  in  The  Congregationalist,  —the  fairness  of  which  was  at  the 
lime  the  subject  of  special  remark, —  corrected  and  somewhat  enlarged 
by  reference  to  the  volume  of  reports  printed  by  the  respondents. 

In  the  absence  of  that  complete,  though  it  would  have  been 
voluminous,  presentation  of  the  case,  which  it  would  have  seemed 
tlie  part  of  wisdom  to  make  jointly,  it  is  believed  that  the  present 


VI 


issue  offers  to  the  public  the  best  means  which  are  likely  to  be  avail- 
able at  present  for  comprehending  this  most  important  and  interest- 
ing matter  in  its  entirety. 

It  should  not  be  forgotten  that,  in  the  order  of  the  hearings,  the 
statements  and  arguments  of  Professors  Tucker,  Harris,  Hincks,  and 
Churchill,  while  for  convenience  here  grouped  with  the  others  on 
the  same  side,  in  point  of  fact  followed  after  the  closing  of  the  case 
of  Professor  Smyth,  and,  by  agreement,  without  reply  from  the 
complainants. 


HISTORICAL  STATEMENT. 


The  Theological  Seminary  at  Audover  was  opened  for  service 
28th  September,  1808.  The  pressure  of  feeling  hostile  to  Evan- 
gelical religion  was  then  so  strong  in  the  Legislature  that  it  was 
feared  it  would  prove  impossible  to  procure  a  charter  for  a  wholly 
new  institution  of  the  quality  desired  ;  and  so  the  Seminary  was 
engrafted  upon  Phillips  Academy,  which  had  there  been  existent 
since  1778,  with  a  charter  deemed  safely  susceptible  of  expansion 
and  modification  sufficient  to  the  new  load.  The  institution  was 
thus  deliberately  started,  so  to  speak,  as  a  compromise  with  an 
academy.  But  there  was  also  a  further  and  much  more  impor- 
tant compromise  vitally  connected  with  its  origin.  The  friends  of 
Orthodoxy  then  existed  in  two  schools,  essentially  one,  but  ear- 
nestly differing  as  to  several  points  :  to  wit,  the  old  Calvinists  and 
the  Hopkinsians,  or  new  Divinity  men.  Each  of  these  sections, 
in  the  Providence  of  God,  had  been  led  to  regard  it  as  of  great 
consequence,  especially  in  view  of  the  then  recent  defection  of 
Harvard  College  from  the  ancient  faith,  that  a  school  distinctively 
for  the  teaching  of  theology  be  established  in  New  England  ;  and 
the  Calvinists,  under  the  lead  of  Dr.  Morse,  of  Charlestown,  and 
his  friend?,  had  secured  the  promise  of  large  moneys  from  good 
people  at  Andover  for  the  purpose  of  starting  such  a  school  upon 
the  academy  foundation  there  as  a  basis  ;  while,  at  the  same  time, 
the  Hopkinsians,  under  the  lead  of  Dr.  Spring,  of  Newburyport, 
had  considerable  expectations  of  funds  for  a  like  purpose,  in  that 
vicinity.  AYhen,  however,  it  became  known  that  two  such 
"academies,"  as  they  called  them,  were  in  contemplation,  there 
grew  up  immediately  and  extensively  a  strong  feeling  that  it 
would  be  much  better  in  moral  effect,  as  of  course  it  would  be 
financially,  for  both  to  be  merged  in  one  strong  and  well-funded 
institution.     Negotiations  for  this  purpose  were  entered  upon  and 


Vlll 


vigorously  carried  forward.  Should  such  uuiou  take  place,  the 
necessities  of  the  proposed  connectiou  with  Phillips  Academy 
made  it  imperative  that  the  Hopkinsians  be  the  party  to  give  up 
their  special  plans  and  remove,  transferring  their  money,  good- 
will, and  men  —  for  their  chief  instructor  had  been  already  se- 
lected—from Newburyport  to  Andover.  They  were  reluctant  to 
do  this,  in  any  case,  and  they  were  especially  solicitous  lest  they 
might  not  secure  all  the  safeguards  which  seemed  to  them  essen- 
tial for  the  theological  security  of  such  a  transaction.  Two  years 
or  so  were  spent  in  writing  and  rewriting,  in  conference,  and  in 
journeyings  often,  before  all  the  details  could  be  satisfactorily 
adjusted.  The  mass  of  correspondence,  not  long  since  published 
in  the  Appendix  to  the  History  of  the  Seminary,  by  Dr.  Woods, 
shows  how  intense  was  the  solicitude,  how  eager  the  anxiety,  and 
how  scrupulous  the  conscience  of  both  parties,  in  perfecting  those 
arrangements  by  which  this  consolidation  was  at  last  effected ; 
and  particularly  how  minute  and  solemn  was  the  care  devoted  to 
the  Creed,  in  the  endeavor— so  far  as  human  foresight  could 
make  anything  secure  —  to  settle  it  that  in  no  possible  way  should 
either  party  ever  get  advantage  of  the  other,  or  then-  joint  bounty 
fail  of  being  forever  administered  in  the  interest  of  what  they 
considered  to  be  truth,  and  to  the  confutation  and  destruction  of 
what  they  looked  upon  as  error. 

The  Hopkinsians,  who  were  giving  up  their  own  special  and  fav- 
orite plans,  and  putting  their  money  into  the  hands  of  those  from 
whom  they  had  been  in  some  degree  theologically  separated,  felt 
that  there  was  one  element  of  weakness,  if  not  of  real  danger, 
inherent  in  the  first  compromise  which  had  engrafted  the  Seminary 
upon  Phillips  Academy  ;  which  was,  that,  by  the  charter  of  that 
institution,  "  a  major  part "  of  its  Trustees  "  shall  be  laymen,"  a 
condition  eminently  reasonable  and  proper  for  the  management  of 
a  purely  secular  academy  for  boys,  but  open  to  serious  question 
when  the  institution  came  to  be  devoted  to  the  higher  functions 
of  Divinity,  and  it  was  made  the  duty  of  those  Trustees  to  select 
instructors  between  shades  of  theology,  and  to  decide  as  to  fitness 
in  the  cases  of  persons  whose  natural  scope  of  thought,  culture, 
and  labor  must  be  necessarily  above  their  own,  and  as  to  which 
they  could  not  be  expected  to  be  experts.  The  Newburyport  men 
were  unwilling  to  run  the  risks  of  this,  without  some  compensa- 
tive provision.  And  so  they  proposed  the  creation  of  a  Board  of 
Visitors  which  should  be  supreme  over  the  Trustees,  and  furnish  a 


Court  of  final  resort,  competent  to  correct  errors  in  the  lower 
Board,  and  to  represent  the  Founders  forever  in  the  oversight  of 
the  just  management  of  their  funds,  and  of  the  instruction  which 
those  funds  should  provide.  Only  when  this  arrangement  had 
been  mutually  consented  to,  and  as  fully  accepted  for  the  one 
party  as  for  the  other,  did  the  consolidation  take  place  and  the 
Seminary  begin  its  work. 

The  arrangement  thus  agi'eed  upon  requires,  when  a  Professor 
has  been  elected  by  the  Trustees,  that  that  election  shall,  within 
ten  days,  be  presented  to  the  Msitors  ;  and  not  until  confirmed  by 
them — excepting  only  that  no  action  thereon  by  them  for  tlie  space 
of  twelve  mouths  from  the  commencement  of  the  vacancy  which 
it  is  intended  to  fill  furnishes  a  practical  confirmation  —  does 
the  election  become  legal  and  the  transaction  complete.  These 
Visitors  are  further  entrusted  with  the  power  to  determine,  inter- 
pret, and  explain  the  Statutes  of  the  Seminary,  to  redress  griev- 
ances, to  hear  appeals  from  decisions  of  the  Trustees,  to  reverse 
their  censures,  to  declare  void  their  rules  and  regulations  when 
inconsistent  with  the  original  Statutes,  to  take  care  that  the  Pro- 
fessors perform  faithfully  their  duties,  and  to  admonish  or  remove 
them  for  misbehavior,  heterodoxy,  incapacity,  or  neglect  of  duty 
—  and  so  on.  It  is,  moreover,  expressly  charged  upon  them  that 
no  man  be  continued  as  a  Professor  who  shall  not  continue  to 
approve  himself  a  man  of  sound  and  Orthodox  principles  in  di- 
vinity, agreeably  to  the  Creed  on  which  the  institution  is  founded. 
For  purposes  of  convenient  reference,  that  Creed  is  here  reprinted. 
It  was  first  proposed  and  adopted  by  the  Associate  Founders  [the 
Hopkinsians] ,  and  afterwards  accepted  word  for  word  by  the 
original  Founders  [the  old  Calvinists] ,  and  thus  jointly  made  the 
unchangeable  legal  basis  of  the  doctrine  to  be  taught  in  the  insti- 
tution forever.  "We  say  "unchangeable"  because  the  following 
injunction  became  a  part  of  the  solemn  contract  between  the 
parties,  namely  :  — 

It  is  strictly  and  .solemnly  enjoined,  and  left  in  sacred  charge,  that  every 
article  of  the  above  said  Creed  shall  forever  remain  entirely  and  identically  the 
same,  without  the  least  alteration,  addition,  or  diminution. 

This  Creed  is  as  follows  :— 

THF.    CREED. 

I  believe  that  there  is  one  and  but  one  living  and  true  GOD:  that  the  word  of 
God,  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  is  the  only 
perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice;  that  agreeably  to  these  Scriptures  God  is  a 
Spirit,  inlinite,  eternal,  and  unchangeable  in  his  being,  wisdom,  power,  holiness. 


justice,  goodness,  and  truth ;  that  in  the  Godhkad  are  three  Persons,  the  Father, 
"the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  and  that  these  Three  are  One  God,  the  same 
in  substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory;  that  GOD  created  man,  after  his  own 
image,  in  knowledge,  righteousness,  and  hohness;  that  the  glory  of  God  is  man's 
chief  end,  and  the  enjoyment  of  God  his  supreme  happiness;  that  this  enjoy- 
ment is  derived  solely  from  conformity  of  heart  to  the  moral  character  and  will  of 
God;  that  Adam,  the  federal  head  and  representative  of  the  human  race,  was 
placed  in  a  state  of  probation,  and  that,  in  consequence  of  his  disobedience,  all 
his  descendants  were  constituted  sinners :  that  Ijy  nature  every  man  is  personally 
depraved,  destitute  of  holiness,  unlike  and  opposed  to  God;  and  that,  previously 
to  the  renewing  agency  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  all  his  moral  actions  are  adverse 
to  the  character  and  glory  of  God  ;  that,  being  morally  incapalde  of  recovering 
the  image  of  his  Creator,  which  was  lost  in  Adam,  every  man  is  justly  exposed 
to  eternal  damnation;  so  that,  except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the 
kingdom  of  God  ;  that  God,  of  his  mere  good  pleasure,  from  all  eternity  elected 
some  to  everlasting  life,  and  that  he  entered  into  a  covenant  of  grace,  to  deliver 
them  out  of  this  state  of  sin  and  misery  by  a  Redeemer  ;  that  the  only  Re- 
deemer of  the  elect  is  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  who  for  this  purpose  became 
man.  and  continues  to  be  God  and  man  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one  person 
forever;  that  Christ,  as  our  Redeemer,  executeth  the  office  of  a  Prophet,  Priest, 
and  King;  that,  agreeably  to  the  covenant  of  redemption,  the  Son  of  God,  and 
he  alone,  by  his  sufferings  and  death,  has  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all 
men;  that  repentance,  faith,  and  holiness  are  the  personal  requisites  in  the  Gos- 
pel scheme  of  salvation;  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  the  only  ground  of 
a  sinner's  justification;  that  this  righteousness  is  received  through  faith;   and 
that  this  faith  is  the  gift  of  God  :  so  that  our  salvation  is  wholly  of  grace ;  that 
no  means  whatever  can  change  the  heart  of  a  sinner,  and  make  it  holy ;  that 
regeneration  and  sanctification  are  effects  of  the  creating  and  renewing  agency 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  supreme  love  to  God  constitutes  the  essential 
difference  between  saints  and  sinners;  that  l>y  convincing  us  of  our  sin  and 
misery,  enlightening  our  minds,  working  faith  in  us,  and  renewing  our  wills,  the 
Holy  Spirit  makes  us  partakers  of  the  benefits  of  redemption;  and  that  the 
ordinary  means,  by  which  these  benefits  are  communicated  to  us,  are  the  word, 
sacraments,  and  prayer;  that  repentance  unto  life,  faith  to  feed  upon  Christ, 
love  to  God,  and  new  obedience,  are  the  appropriate  qualifications  for  the  Lord's 
Supper ;  and  that  a  Christian  Church  ought  to  admit  no  person  to  its  holy  com- 
munion, before  he  exhibit  credii)le  evidence  of  his  godly  sincerity;  that  perse- 
verance in  holiness  is  the  only  method  of  making  our  calling  and  election  sure; 
and  that  the  final  perseverance  of  saints,  though  it  is  the  eftect  of  the  special 
operation  of  God  on  their  hearts,  necessarily  implies  their  own  watchful  dili- 
gence; that  they,  who  are  effectually  called,  do  in  this  life  partake  of  justification, 
adoption,  and  sanctification,  and  the  several  benefits  which  do  either  accompany 
or  flow  from  them;  that  the  souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death  made  perfect  in 
holiness,  and  do  immediately  pass  into  glory;  that  their  bodies,  being  still  united 
to  Christ,  will  at  the  resurrection  be  raised  up  to  glory,  and  that  the  saints  will 
be  made  perfectly  blessed  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  God  to  all  eternity;  but  that 
the  wicked  will  awake  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt,  and  with  devils  be 
plunged  into  the  lake  that  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone  forever  and  ever. 
I  moreover  believe  that  God,  according  to  the  counsel  of  his   own  will,  and 
for  his  own  glory,  hath  foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  and  that  all 
beings,  actions,  and  events,  both  in  the  natural  and  moral  world,  are  under  his 
providential  direction;  that  God'S  decrees  perfectly  consist  with  human  liberty: 
God's  universal  agency  with  the  agency  of  man;  and  man's  dependence  with 


XI 

his  accountability;  that  mau  has  understanding.'  and  corporeal  strength  to  do  all 
that  God  requires  of  him;  so  that  nothinir,  but  the  sinner's  aversion  to  holiness, 
prevents  his  salvation;  that  it  is  the  prero^'ative  of  Gon,  to  bring  good  out  of 
evil,  and  that  He  will  cause  the  wrath  and  rage  of  wicked  men  and  devils  to 
praise  Him;  and  that  all  the  evil,  which  has  exi-ted.  and  will  forever  exist,  in 
the  moral  system,  will  eventually  be  made  to  pmmote  a  most  important  purpose 
under  the  wise  and  perfect  administration  of  that  Almighty  Being,  who  will 
cause  all  things  to  work  for  his  own  glory,  and  thus  fultil  all  his  plea.-ure.— 
And  farthermore.  I  do  solemnly  promi>e  that  T  will  open  and  explain  the 
.Scriptures  to  my  Tupils  with  integrity  and  faithfulness;  that  I  will  maintain  and 
inculcate  the  Christian  faith,  as  expressed  in  the  Creed  by  rao  now  repeated, 
together  with  all  the  other  doctrines  and  duties  of  our  holy  Religion,  so  far  as 
may  appertain  to  my  ottice.  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  me,  and  in 
opposition,  not  only  to  Atheists  and  Intidels,  but  to  Jews,  Papists.  Mahometans, 
Arians.  Pelagians,  Antinomians,  Arminians,  Socinians,  Sabellians,  Unitarians, 
and  Universalists ;  and  to  all  heresies  and  errors,  ancient  or  modern,  which  may 
be  opposed  to  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  or  hazardous  to  the  souls  of  men;  that  by 
my  instruction,  counsel,  and  exiimple,  I  will  endeavor  to  promote  true  piety  and 
Godliness;  that  I  will  consult  the  good  of  this  Ixstitl'TIOX,  and  the  peace  of 
the  Churches  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  on  all  occasions :  and  that  I  will  religiously 
conform  to  the  Constitution  and  Laws  of  this  Semln'aky,  and  to  the  Statutes  of 
this  Foundation. 

After  nearly  three  quarters  of  a  century,  mainly  of  quiet  pros- 
perity, those  troubles  arose  in  the  institution  which  issued  in  the 
trial  which  this  volume  describes. 

In  March,  1882,  it  was  announced  that  Rev.  Newman  Smyth, 
D.D.,  then  of  Quincy,  111.,  had  been  elected  by  the  Trustees  of 
the  Seminary  at  Andover,  to  the  Abbot  Professorship  of  Chris- 
tian Theology  in  that  institution,  which  had  been  some  time  before 
left  vacant  by  the  resignation  of  Professor  E.  A.  Park,  D.D. 
On  the  22d  April  following,  this  election  was  negatived  by  the 
Board  of  Visitors.  The  Trustees  then  immediately  elected  him 
instructor  in  Systematic  Theology  for  one  year,  but  he  declined  to 
serve.  A  few  months  later  Rev.  George  Harris,  of  Providence, 
R.  I.,  was  elected  by  the  Trustees  to  the  same  chair,  and  was 
confirmed  by  the  Visitors.  In  the  public  discussion  which  ac- 
companied these  transactions,  it  became  obvious  —  and  partly 
through  a  letter  from  six  of  the  Professors  themselves  which  was 
published  in  the  Congregationalist  of  12th  April,  1882  —  that 
views  were  held  by  them,  and  that  they  claimed  and  defended 
the  right  to  hold  views,  which  were  extensiveh'  regarded  as 
differing  in  important  particulars  from  those  of  the  Founders 
of  the  Seminary  as  defined  in  its  Creed,  and  not  less  from  those 
which  had  been  uniformly  taught  in  the  institution  by  their  pre- 
decessors in  office.     At  a  later  date  other  changes    took    place 


xu 


which  iucreased  the  number  of  Professors  whose  teachiDgs  ou 
various  doctrines,  and  preeminently  as  to  the  matter  of  Probation 
after  Death,  awakened  serious  solicitude  among  many  of  the 
Alumni ;  as  indeed  among  many  other  warm  friends  of  the  Semi- 
nary, and  of  evangelical  truth  in  general.  In  January,  1884, 
these  Professors  started  The  Andover  Bevieic,  through  the  pages 
of  which,  from  that  time  to  the  present,  they  have  been  even 
more  boldly  and  distinctly  advocating  these  peculiar  views,  some 
of  which  also  they  have  emphasized  by  reprinting  them  in  book 
form  in  the  volume  called  '•  Progressive  Orthodoxy." 

Feeling  that,  as  a  matter  of  conscience,  he  could  not  allow 
these  things  to  go  on  longer  in  silence,  on  12th  January,  1886,  Rev. 
J.  ^y.  Wellman.  D.D..  one  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  at  a  regular 
quarterly  meeting  of  that  body,  brought  up  the  matter  in  the 
form  of   a  preamble  and  resolution,  as  follows:  — 

W/iereas,it  is  publicly  alleged  that  some  teachings  in  the  Theological  Seminary 
at  Andover,  and  some  opinions  of  Professors  in  that  Seminary,  especially  as 
recently  avowed  by  them  in  their  own  periodical,  are  not  in  harmony  with  sound 
doctrLue  as  expressed  in  the  Creed  which  the  Founders  and  Donors  of  this  insti- 
tution made  the  unalterable  condition  of  the  gifts  which  were  committed  in 
sacred  trust  to  this  Board;  and 

Whereas,  also,  by  such  public  and  repeated  allegations,  the  minds  of  loyal 
graduates  are  seriously  disturbed,  and  the  confidence  of  Christian  people  in 
the  integrity  of  the  Seminary  is  becoming  impaired,  and  the  good  of  this  institu- 
tion, and  the  peace  of  the  Churches  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  are  thought  to  be 
imperiled ; 

Therefore,  to  the  end  that  such  rumors  and  fears  may  be  set  at  rest  by  the 
authority  to  whose  decision,  in  accordance  with  Article  Tenth  of  the  Additional 
Statutes,  all  such  questions  are  to  be  submitted,  namely:  the  Board  of  Visitors, 

Resolved,  That  the  Board  of  Visitors  be  respectfully  requested  to  examine 
and  consider  whether  any  of  the  teachings  or  opinions  of  any  of  the  Professors 
conflict  with,  or  fail  to  "  maintain  and  inculcate,''  in  any  of  its  parts,  the  Creed 
of  this  Seminary. 

We  are  informed  by  Dr.  Wellman  that,  according  to  the  usual 
practice  of  the  Board,  its  members,  one  after  another,  expressed 
their  opinions  in  regard  to  the  resolution  thus  offered.  Every 
member  present,  with  the  exception  of  its  mover,  declared  himself 
to  be  opposed  to  the  resolution,  some  saying  that,  if  there  were 
need  of  any  such  investigation,  the  Trustees  should  make  it; 
others  that,  were  such  a  resolution  to  be  passed,  it  would  lead  the 
public  to  suppose  some  need  for  such  investigation  existed,  which 
they  did  not  believe  —  all  agreeing  thus  informally  against  the 
proposition.     Dr.    Wellman   then   said:    "Gentlemen,  you   have 


XIU 

refused  my  request,  as  you  had  a  right  to  do.  But  I  cannot  rest 
here.  I  do  not  know  what  I  shall  do.  But  if  there  be  anything 
which  I  can  rightly  do  to  save  Andover  Seminary  to  the  service  of 
the  faith  which  it  was  founded  to  maintain,  I  shall  do  it." 

A  month  before,  in  The  Andover  Review  for  December,  1885, 
its  five  editors  —  all  of  them  Professors  in  the  Andover  Seminary 
—  had  referred,  with  some  feeling,  to  the  fact  that  they  were  pop- 
ularly accused  of  divergence  in  their  teaching  from  the  creed  to 
which  they  had  subscribed,  and  had  added  that,  under  the  circum- 
stances, they  felt  warranted  in  referring  their  censors  to  Rom. 
xiv,  4  [••  Who  art  thou  that  judgest  another  man's  servant?  to 
his  own  master  he  standeth  or  falleth"].  This  was,  not  unnatu- 
rally, interpreted  as  being  a  substantial  assertion  by  them  that  so 
long  as  the  Visitors  —  to  whom,  by  the  statutes,  the  Professors 
are  made  responsible  for  their  continued  Orthodoxy  —  found  no 
fault  with  their  doctrinal  position,  no  one  of  the  Alumni,  or  other 
person,  had  any  right  to  question  it.  Such  a  declaration  awak- 
ened solicitude  among  certain  of  the  Alumni,  and  on  the  28th 
of  that  month  a  meeting  was  held,  which,  reassembling  by 
adjournment  in  the  January  following,  considered  the  whole 
subject  with  care  and  prayer.  Dr.  "Wellman  communicated  to 
them  his  action  in  the  Board  of  Trustees  and  its  ill-success. 
After  much  consideration,  it  seemed  to  him,  and  to  these  Alumni, 
that  no  course  remained  open  but,  in  compliance  with  the  organic 
law  of  the  Seminary,  as  indeed  with  former  precedents  in  its  his- 
tory, for  them  to  make  appeal  to  the  Honorable  Visitors  and 
request  them  to  look  into  the  subject. 

Applying  to  them  for  permission  so  to  do,  the  7th  July,  1886, 
was  assigned  as  the  date  for  the  hearing  asked.  At  that  time 
Dr.  Wellman  and  a  Committee  of  the  Alumni  thus  acting,  con- 
sisting of  Drs.  H.  M.  Dexter  and  O.  T.  Lanphear,  with  others, 
appeared.  They  stated  that  it  was  not  their  pui-pose  to  present 
formal  charges  against  any  Professor,  but  only  —  as  more  fully 
explained  in  the  introduction  to  the  argument  of  one  of  them 
subsequently  —  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Visitors  to  circum- 
stances which  seemed  to  need  investigation,  leaving  their  Honor- 
able body  to  take  such  action,  if  any,  thereon,  as  their  judgment 
of  the  facts  and  of  their  duty  might  require.  The  complainants 
—  if  then  they  could  rightly  be  called  such  —  simply  asked  leave 
to  read,  in  the  hearing  of  the  Visitors,  three  or  four  statements 
of   what   were    believed   to  be  facts,  which  statements,  for   the 


XIV 


conreuience  of  the  Board,  aud  that,  ipsissimis  verbis,  they  might 
be  placed  at  once  in  the  hands  of  the  Professors,  they  had 
had  privately  printed.  The  Visitors,  however,  decided  neither  to 
receive  nor  hear  these  papers,  but  directed  Dr.  Wellman  and  the 
Committee  to  reduce  what  they  felt  constrained  to  offer  in  com- 
plaint to  the  form  of  definite  charges  ;  instructing  the  Secretary 
of  the  Board  to  forward  such  charges,  when  formulated  and  filed 
with  him,  to  the  Professors  implicated,  and  to  cite  them  to  make 
answer  to  the  same  within  fifteen  days.  This  was  done,  and  all 
parties  were  summoned  to  a  hearing,  25th  October,  at  the  United 
States  Hotel  in  Boston. 

The  charges  thus  filed  against  the  five  Professors  who  conduct 
The  Andover  Review,  namely:  Professors  E.  C  Smyth,  D.D., 
W.  J.  Tucker,  D.D.,  George  Harris,  D.D.,  E.  Y.  Hincks,  D.D., 
and  J.  Wesley  Churchill,  A.M.,  were  sixteen,  as  follows,  namely  : 
That  they  hold,  maintain,  and  inculcate  :  — 


1.  That  the  Bible  is  not  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  but  is 
fallible  and  untrustworthy  even  in  some  of  its  religious  teachings. 

2.  That  Christ,  in  the  days  of  His  humiliation,  was  merely  a  finite  being  — 
limited  in  all  his  attributes,  capacities,  and  attainments. 

3.  That  no  man  has  power,  or  capacity,  to  repent  without  knowledge  of  the 
historic  Christ. 

4.  That  mankind,  save  as  instructed  in  a  knowledge  of  the  historic  Christ,  are 
not  sinners,  or,  if  they  are,  not  of  such  sinfulness  as  to  be  in  danger  of  being 
lost. 

5.  That  no  man  can  be  lost  without  having  had  knowledge  of  Christ. 

6.  That  the  Atonement  of  Christ  consists  essentially  and  chiefly  in  His  becom- 
ing identilied  with  the  human  race  through  His  Incarbation;  in  order  that,  by 
His  union  with  men,  He  might  endow  them  with  the  power  to  repent,  and  thus 
impart  to  them  an  augmented  value  in  the  view  of  God,  and  so  propitiate  God  to 
men,  and  men  to  God. 

7.  That  the  Trinity  is  modal,  and  not  personal. 

8.  That  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  mainly  limited  to  natural  methods  and 
within  historic  Christianity. 

9.  That  without  the  knowledge  of  the  historic  Christ,  men  do  not  deserve  the 
punishment  of  the  law,  and  that  therefore  their  salvation  is  not  "  wholly  of 
grace." 

10.  That  faith  ought  to  be  scientific  and  rational,  rather  than  Scriptural. 

11.  That  there  is  and  will  be  probation  after  death  for  all  men  who  have  not 
in  this  world  had  knowledge  of  the  historic  Christ. 

12.  That  this  hypothetical  belief  in  probation  after  death  should  be  brought  to 
the  front,  exalted,  and  made  central  in  theology  and  in  the  beliefs  of  men. 

13.  That  Christian  missions  are  not  to  be  supported  aud  conducted  on  the 
ground  that  men  who  know  not  Christ  are  in  danger  of  perishing  forever,  and 
must  perish  forever  unless  saved  in  this  life. 

14.  That  a  system  of  physical  and  metaphysical  philosophy  is  true  which  by 


XV 

fair  inference  neutralizes  the  Chri^tiun  doctrine  as  taught  in  the  Creeil  of  Ihe 
Seminary. 

15.  That  there  is  a  '*  New  Theology  better  than  the  OKI,"  which  we  appre- 
hend is  not  in  harmony  with  the  Creed,  but  fatally  opposed  to  the  same. 

16.  That  the  said  Professors  hold  and  teach  many  things  which  cannot  be 
reconciled  with  that  Orthodox  and  consistent  Calvinism  which  the  Statutes 
require  of  them,  and  to  which  they  stand  publicly  committed;  and  that,  in 
repeated  instances,  these  Professors  have  broken  solemn  promises  made  when 
they  subscribed  to  the  Creed. 

At  this  hearing  the  Professors  made  answer  by  counsel.  They 
raised  seven  points  of  objection  against  the  procedure,  namely : 
(1)  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Visitors  is  solely  appellate,  touch- 
ing nothing  which  does  not  go  up  to  them  from  the  Trustees  ;  (2) 
that  similar  proceedings  of  earlier  date  were  then  pending  before 
that  lower  board,  which  must  take  precedence  ;  (3)  that  the  com- 
plainants had  no  legal  standing  before  the  Visitors  ;  (4)  that  the 
Professors  could  not  legally  be  proceeded  against  jointly  ;  (o) 
that  the  charges  were  too  rague  to  need  any  answer  ;  (6)  that 
some  of  them  were  outside  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary  and,  there- 
fore, of  the  Visitorial  jurisdiction  ;  and  (7)  that,  generally,  all 
the  proceedings  were  irregular  and  insufficient.  These  points 
were  argued  affirmatively,  with  much  ability  and  at  great  length, 
by  Prof.  T.  VT.  Dwight,  LL.D.,  of  the  Columbia  Law  School,  New 
York  City,  and  by  ex-Governor  William  Gaston,  LL.D.,  of  Boston, 
and  were  replied  to  much  more  briefly  by  Hon.  Asa  French  and 
Hon.  E.  R.  Hoar,  on  the  part  of  the  complainants.  The  Visitors 
subsequently  sent  to  all  parties  the  following  judgment  on  these 
preliminaries,  namely  :  — 

The  Visitors  are  unanimous  in  the  opinion :  That  they  have  original  jurisdic- 
tion in  the  premises;  that  no  proceeding  is  pending  before  the  Board  of  Trustees 
for  the  same  alleged  ortences ;  and  that  the  complainants  are  rightly  before  the 
Board  by  its  permission  and  authority ;  but  we  deem  it  proper  that  the  charges 
should  be  amended  so  as  to  proceed  against  the  respondents  individually  and 
separately,  and  that  such  charges  as  are  indefinite  should  be  made  plain. 

Voted.  That  the  complainants  comply  with  the  foregoing  order  on  or  before 
the  eighth  of  November  next. 

It  should  be  said  here  that  the  Honorable  Board  of  Visitors,  as 
at  present  constituted,  is  composed  of  Rev.  JuUus  H.  Seelye, 
D.D.,  LL.D..  President  of  Amherst  College;  Rev.  TMlliam  T. 
Eustis,  D.D.,  pastor  of  the  "  Memorial  Church"  in  Springfield, 
and  Hon.  Joshua  N.  Marshall,  of  Lowell. 

The  complainants  complied  with  this  order,  and  amended  their 
action  so  as  to  proceed  separately  against  each  of  the  five  Pro- 


XV] 

fessors.  They  further  modified  their  charges  against  those  gen- 
tlemen by  slight  verbal  changes  in  several,  whose  nature  will 
sufficiently  appear  in  the  arguments  which  follow  ;  by  uniting  the 
eleventh  and  twelfth,  reducing  their  number  to  fifteen  in  all ;  and 
by  appending  many  citations  from  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  and 
other  writings  for  which  those  Professors  are  responsible,  in  ex- 
planation and  support  of  the  same.  In  due  time  answer  was 
made.  Each  Professor,  in  general,  insisted  that  the  charges  were 
too  misleading  and  indefinite  to  require  or  enable  answer,  and 
denied  that  the  beliefs  charged  are  held,  or  that,  if  held,  they  are 
inconsistent  with  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary. 

The  public  hearing  on  these  amended  charges  commenced  before 
the  Visitors,  in  the  United  States  Hotel,  on  Tuesday,  28th  Decem- 
ber, 1886,  and  was  continued  through  Wednesday,  Thursday,  and 
Friday,  the  case  of  Professor  Smyth  being  first  taken  up.  They 
were  fully  argued,  on  the  part  of  the  Professors,  by  Professor 
Dwight,  of  New  York,  Prof.  S.  E.  Baldwin,  of  the  Yale  Law 
School,  New  Haven,  Hon.  Charles  Theodore  Russell,  of  Cam- 
bridge, an  ex-Visitor,  and  ex-Governor  William  Gaston,  of  Boston  ; 
and  on  the  part  of  the  complainants  by  ex-Judges  Hon.  Asa  French 
and  E.  R.  Hoar,  as  counsel,  with  the  aid  of  Mr.  A.  H.  Wellman, 
and  by  Dr.  J.  W.  Wellman,  as  a  protesting  Trustee,  and  Drs.  O. 
T.  Lanphear  and  H.  M.  Dexter,  for  the  Committee  of  certain  of 
the  Alumni.  As  the  subject-matter  of  complaint  was  essentially 
the  same  in  each  case,  it  was  agreed  that  the  arguments  should 
not  be  repeated  in  the  cases  of  Professors  Tucker,  Harris, 
Hincks,  and  Churchill,  but  that  each  of  them  should  make  a  state- 
ment for  himself  on  Monday,  3d  January,  the  complainants 
waiving  reply  to  the  same.  On  that  occasion  Dr.  Eustis  was 
prevented  from  being  present ;  but  by  agreement  of  all  parties 
who  were  in  attendance  the  hearing  was  proceeded  with  in  his 
absence,  a  verbatim  reporter  taking  note  of  all  that  was  said 
for  his  perusal. 

The  hearings  being  thus  ended,  the  case  was  taken  under  ad- 
visement by  the  Board  of  Visitors  ;  not,  however,  without  consid- 
erable delay,  growing  out  of  the  fact  that  several  weeks  elapsed 
before  the  two  volumes  containing  the  complete  arguments  on 
each  side  could  be  printed  and  placed  in  their  hands. 

Their  decision  was  adopted  at  their  annual  meeting  in  Andover 
on  the  evening  of  Anniversary  Day,  16th  June,  1887,  and  concludes 
this  volume. 


SUMMAEY  OF   THE  KESPONDENTS'  AEGUMENTS. 


PROF.    T.    W.    DWIGHT  S    ARGUMENT. 

Professoi-  Dwight  opened  the  ease  of  the  respondents  in  a  learned 
address,  the  delivery  of  which  occupied  more  than  four  hours. 
Having  reviewed  the  history  of  the  complaint,  he  urged  that  in 
such  a  case  both  parties  should  have  an  interest  in  the  matter, 
that  the  charges  had  not  been  properly  specified,  and  that  no 
offence  had  been  committed  over  which  the  Board  of  Visitors  has 
original  jurisdiction.  The  matter  is  one  for  the  Trustees  to  act 
upon,  and  it  cannot  be  dealt  with  lawfully  here  while  action  is 
pending  before  them.  The  only  charge  is  the  much  too  vague  one 
of  heterodoxy,  and  that  only  by  implication.  AVhat  is  heterodoxy? 
It  is  a  deviation  from  the  common  belief,  and  not  from  a  special 
creed.  The  Visitors  have  no  power  of  removal  because  of  teach- 
ing hostile  to  the  Creed.  The  Founders  never  meant  to  threaten 
the  Professors  as  with  the  sword  of  Damocles,  whenever  they 
occupied  their  lecture-rooms.  This  case  is  purely  legal,  and  has 
to  do  with  the  enforcement  of  charitable  trusts.  It  is  monstrous 
to  bribe  men  to  teach  what  they  do  not  believe.  In  the  name  of 
all  educators,  we  object  to  putting  shackles  upon  education.  If 
the  Andover  Creed  is  to  prevail,  it  should  have  a  liberal  interpre- 
tation. It  never  has  been  interpreted  judicially  as  to  the  specific 
meaning  of  its  phrases.  In  the  Norris  case  it  was  decided  that 
the  creed  of  1807  and  1808  must  be  interpreted  in  harmony  with 
the  foundation  of  1778,  which  declares  that  loyalty  is  required, 
not  to  a  creed,  but  to  the  Christian  religion.  The  Professors  are 
not  only  to  teach,  but  to  teach  •'  according  to  the  best  light  which 
God  shall  give  them."  The  Creed  abounds  in  legal  terms  from 
the  old  Roman  law,  of  which  the  best  has  to  be  made.  This 
court  must  not  adopt  an  astute,  narrow,  and  uncharitable  decision. 
No  Professor  on  the  Associate  Foundation  is  obUged  to  assent  to 


XVIU 


tb3  Shorter    Catechism.      The   relation  of   this  catechism  to   the 
Creed  then  was  dwelt  upon,  in  the  effort  to  show  that  Congrega- 
tional usage  has   been  to   go    directly  to   the   vScriptures.     From 
John  Milton  and  John  Robinson  down,  there  has  been  an  ever- 
increasing  tendency  towards  liberality,  and  the  Founders  of  the 
Seminary  were  in  sympathy  with  it.     A  sketch  of  the  foundation 
of  the  institution  then  was  given,  after  which  the  speaker  endeav- 
ored to  show  that  Samuel  Phillips,  Jr.,  the  Founder,  attempted  to 
build   upon  the  basis  of  John  Locke's   system,  then  some  sixty 
years  old,  which  was  eminently  tolerant.     It  also  was  argued  that 
because  most   of   the   Shorter  Catechism  is  incorporated    in  the 
Associate  Creed,  as  was   shown  by  comparing  them   in    parallel 
columns,  the  Creed  was  intended  to  serve  as  a  substitute  for  the 
catechism.     No  man  can  accept  both   in  full.     The  respondents 
caiinot   be,    as   the   prosecution    demands.    Orthodox    and    con- 
sistent Calvinists,  for  Calvin  held  to  a  limited  atonement   only. 
Furthermore,  whatever  the  Professors  have  published  in  '•  Progres- 
sive Orthodoxy  "  and   The  Andover  Review  has  no  bearing  ;  only 
what  they  have  taught  their  pupils  is  relevant.     In  reference  to 
the  charge  of  teaching  the  theory  of  probation  after  death,  several 
points  were  taken,  their  substance  being  that  this  doctrine  follows 
naturally  from  that  of  a  universal  atonement,  that  the  Creed  con- 
tains   nothing    opposed   to   it,    and   that    it    should    be    taught 
guardedly  as  probable.     Missions,  he  added,  have  thriven  under  a 
a  gospel  not  of  fear,  but  of  love.     What  is  to  be  the  effect  on  the 
people  if  the  doctrine  of  universal  atonement  be  treated  as  prac- 
tically a  mockery  ?     The  objection  to  the  reply  that  the  heathen 
have  the  light  of  nature  is  that  it  introduces  two  methods  of  treat- 
ment of  men  by  God,  and  assumes  that  He  treats  most  men  by 
the  worst  method.     The  Congregational  creed  of  1883  also  incul- 
cates liberty. 

PROF.  E.  C.  SMTTH's  DEFENCE. 

The  sole  charge  against  me  is  one  of  heterodoxy.  A  suit  for 
breach  of  trust  would  lie  properly  against  the  Treasurer,  or  Trus- 
tees. I  hold  that  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary  does  not  bind  the 
institution  to  an  antiquated  phase  of  belief,  but  leads  logically  to 
those  adjustments  of  thought  and  belief  which  are  now  necessary, 
and  leaves  an  open  path  for  such  as  the  future  may  require.  It 
was  a  compromise.  It  is  clothed  in  phraseology  to  interpret  which 
accurately  requires  much  special  learning.     At  certain  points  its 


XIX 

silences  are  even  more  expressive  than  its  utterances.  It  is  not 
the  symbol  of  an  antiquated  phase  of  theology.  I  desire  to  secure 
for  others  after  me  the  rights  of  a  reverent  scholarship  in  the 
study  of  God's  Word.  I  believe  my  interpretation  of  the  duties 
and  rights  of  a  Professor  at  Andover  to  be  the  only  true  one 
according  to  the  Creed  and  Statutes  of  the  Founders.  1  wish  to 
meet  the  complainants  squarely  on  the  narrowest  lines  they  may 
select.     But  their  complaint  is  wholly  futile  and  void. 

Thev  must  prove  that  I  hold  beliefs  inconsistent  with  a  valid 
acceptance  of  the  Creed,  or  that  I  have  violated  my  promise  to 
'•  maintain  and  inculcate  the  Christian  faith  as  expressed  in  the 
Creed.  ...  so  far  as  may  appertain  to  my  office,  according  to 
the  best  light  God  shall  give  me,  and  in  opposition  to"  various 
heresies,  etc.  The  first  requirement  pertains  to  belief,  the  second 
to  official  conduct  in  matters  of  faith.  They  must  prove  that  I 
have  ••maintained  and  inculcated"  an  alleged  belief ,  and  in  my 
work  as  a  Professor,  and  then  that  it  is  contrary  to  my  obligation  to 
the  Creed.  I  have  tried  to  show  upon  what  elements  of  truth 
heresy  has  been  thriving,  and  how  it  could  be  cured  by  the  larger 
truth,  rather  than  to  attack  it  directly.  I  must  be  proved  to  have 
failed  in  mv  teaching.  I  would  not  draw  a  fine  distinction  here, 
however.  But  in  the  field  of  literature  I  am  amenable  to  your 
jurisdiction  only  so  far  as  my  publications  can  be  proved  to  be 
contrary  to  my  official  obligation  to  the  Creed.  I  am  charged 
with  heterodoxy  upon  nearly  all  the  distinguishing  doctrines  of 
our  relifi^ion.  One  signer  is  a  Trustee,  and  has  attended  my  theo- 
logical examinations.  He  should  know  that  I  do  not  teach  a 
••  modal"  Trinity, 

The  first  particular  charge  is  that  I  hold,  maintain,  and  inculcate 
that  the  Bible  is  not  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice, 
but  is  fallible  and  untrustworthy,  even  in  some  of  its  religious 
teachings.  How  does  the  evidence  show  this  ?  The  editorial  in 
The  Andover  Review,  •  •  The  Bible  a  Theme  for  the  Pulpit,"  was 
written  to  uphold  the  doctrine  of  the  Creed.  The  quotations  made 
against  me  from  this  article  have  been  garbled  and  misused. 
They  only  show  that  sometimes  in  the  book  the  word  •'  imperfec- 
tion," or  its  equivalent,  is  used,  whereas  in  the  Creed  the  word 
"perfect"  is  used.  But  it  is  not  thereby  shown  that  the  book 
affirms  to  be  imperfect  what  the  Creed  says  is  perfect.  To  me 
the  Bible  is  the  AVord  of  God.  The  perfection  ascribed  to  it  in 
the  Creed  is  one  of  use  and  function  ;  that  is,  it  is  the  only  perfect 


XX 


guide  in  faith  and  practice.  The  history  of  the  use  of  the,  terms 
in  question  then  was  sketched  briefly  by  the  speaker,  in  defence 
of  his  position. 

The  next  charges  are,  he  continued,  that  I  teach  that  Christ, 
in  the  days  of  His  humiliation,  ^yas  limited  in  all  His  attributes, 
and  was  not  God  and  man  ;  and  that  no  man  has  power  to  repent 
without  knowledge  of  God  in  Christ.  Upon  these  points,  Pro- 
fessor Smyth  claimed  to  have  been  gravely  misrepresented,  and 
read  extracts  in  support  of  his  claim.  He  then  passed  to  the 
fourth  charge,  namely,  of  maintaining  that  mankind  who  have 
not  heard  of  Christ  are  not  sinners,  or  at  any  rate,  such  sinners 
as  to  be  in  danger  of  being  lost.  This  and  the  fifth  —  of  main- 
taining that  no  man  can  be  lost  without  a  knowledge  of  the 
historic  Christ;  the  sixth  — of  maintaining  that  Christ's  atone- 
ment consists  in  His  becoming  identified  with  the  human  race  in 
the  Incarnation  ;  the  seventh — of  maintaining  that  the  Trinity  is 
modal  or  monarchian,  and  not  a  Trinity  of  Persons  ;  the  eighth  — 
of  maintaining  that  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  chiefly  confined 
to  the  sphere  of  historic  Christianity  ;  the  ninth  —  of  maintaining 
that,  without  the  knowledge  of  the  historic  Christ,  man  does  not 
stand  under  the  law;  and  the  tenth  —  of  maintaining  that  faith 
ouiiht  to  be  scientific  and  rational,  rather  than  Scriptural.  —  he 
answered  briefly  by  denial,  explanation,  citation  of  other  passages, 
etc. 

The  eleventh  charge  —  of  maintaining  that  there  is,  and  will  be, 
probation  after  death  for  all  men  who  do  not  decisively  reject 
Christ  in  their  earthly  life,  and  that  this  should  be  emphasized 
and  made  central  in  systematic  theology  — was  considered  more  at 
length.  Said  Professor  Smyth,  a  caveat  was  entered  against  being 
misunderstood  on  this  point,  and  was  given  marked  prominence, 
in  the  book.  The  theory  of  future  probation  is  not  presented  as 
an  essential  question  in  theology,  but  only  as  an  appended 
inquiry,  an  inference  from  a  doctrine  or  fundamental  principle. 
It  is  a  temporary  question,  for  the  time  will  come  when  all  men 
will  hear  the  gospel.  I  claim  liberty  under  the  Creed  to  hold 
w  hatever  a  true  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  rcA'ela- 
tion  which  God  constantly  makes  of  Himself  in  creation,  provi- 
dence, and  redemption,  may  make  probable,  and  with  a  degree  of 
faith  as  exactly  proportioned  to  the  available  evidence  as  I  can 
measure.  I  deny  that  in  what  I  hold  on  the  doctrine  of  probation 
there  is  anything  inconsistent  Avith  the  Cix^cd.     God  as  revealed 


XXI 


in  Christ  is  to  me  central  in  theology.  Upon  the  subject  of 
Eschatology  the  makers  of  the  Creed  used  only  Biblical  language, 
and  made  no  interpretation  of  it.  On  that  point  the  Creed 
contains  no  explicit  declaration,  and  has  only  the  meaning  of 
Scripture,  which  it  quotes.  I  claim  that  this  disposes  finally  and 
conclusively  of  the  whole  question.  All  the  probabilities  are 
that,  if  the  framers  of  the  Creed  had  meant  to  pronounce  upon 
the  doctrine,  they  would  have  done  so  distinctly. 

Again,  the  Creed  contains  no  implicit  declaration  adverse  to 
the  tenet  that  those  who  have  had  no  opportunity  to  learn  of  a 
Saviour  in  this  life  may  be  granted  such  opportunity  in  the  other 
life.  The  argument  of  the  complainants  is  confused  and  self- 
contradictory.  It  is  contended  by  them  that  the  Creed  implies 
that  all  who  are  saved  are  saved  in  this  life.  This  is  an  attempt 
to  find  in  the  Creed  a  doctrine  which  is  not  taught  in  the  place 
where  it  properly  belongs.  The  object  of  the  article  cited  is  not 
to  aflSrm,  nor  does  it  assert,  that  the  effectually  called  are  called 
in  this  life.  It  does  not  deal  at  all  with  the  number  of  the  elect. 
Moreover,  the  conclusions  reached  by  this  method  of  proof  re- 
quire us  to  discard  it,  because  they  are  absurd.  AVe  have  sup- 
posed ourselves  to  be  developing  one  of  the  most  characteristic 
principles  of  the  Creed,  the  universality  of  the  religion  of  the 
cross  of  Christ,  and  this  is  covered  and  made  prominent  in  the 
Creed. 

Furthermore,  my  pledge  is  imperative  to  unfold  the  Scriptures 
••according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  me."  I  accept  the 
Creed  as  it  is  written  and  as  a  whole.  Otherwise  taken,  it  would 
be  self-contradictory.  I  accept  it  "for  substance  of  doctrine," 
using  this  phrase  in  no  loose  sense,  and  in  no  larger  sense  than 
that  in  which  it  was  used  when  the  framers  of  the  Creed  were  still 
alive.  Many  former  Professors,  including  Professors  Stuart  and 
Park,  have  signed  the  Creed,  repudiating  the  doctrine  of  Eternal 
Sonship  as  understood  by  the  framers.  It  must  not  be  overlooked 
that  the  Creed  is  a  union  creed  ;  that  it  contains  traditional  phrase- 
ology which  was  accepted  in  its  traditional  meaning  by  some  at 
least  of  those  who  entered  into  the  union,  and  that  these  men 
approved  of  this  language  being  taken  by  other  men  with  a  new 
meaning,  and  that  those  who  thus  took  it  consented  that  such 
language  should  remain  in  the  Creed.  I  accept  the  Creed  in 
its  historical  sense.  But  I  do  not  mean  that  opinions  it  does  not 
contain  mav  be  read  into  it  because  they  were  entertained  at  the 


time  when  it  was  written.  I  mean  that  its  language  must  be 
interpreted  historically ;  that  whenever  traditional  language  is 
departed  from  and  new  phraseology  introduced,  we  are  brought 
into  special  contact  with  the  intention  of  the  Founders.  The 
Creed  was  not  intended  to  forbid  progress.  It  incites  to  progress. 
Many  of  its  terms  are  way-marks  of  progress  along  the  line 
of  theology. 

Here  Professor  Smyth  exhibited  a  copy  of  the  Creed  printed 
in  different  sorts  of  type,  in  order  to  indicate  its  different  sources. 
There  is  room,  he  then  continued,  for  a  progressive  inter- 
pretation and  systemization  of  the  truths  of  the  Creed,  and 
they  may  be  adjusted  to  a  larger  knowledge  and  life  than 
were  open  to  its  framers.  I  plead  for  no  license  of  interpretation, 
but  for  breadth,  insight,  and  justice.  Is  the  Seminary  committed 
to  the  maintenance  of  transient  opinion,  or  is  there  a  truer  inter- 
pretation of  the  Creed?  When  I  signed  the  Creed,  I  supposed 
that  my  view  was  accepted  generally  at  Andover,  and  was  a  part 
of  its  histor}'.  The  Creed  had  been  the  means  of  union  of  Orthodox 
Congregationalists.  Its  general  structure  and  the  clause  about 
new  light  indicate  the  same  thing.  The  Constitution  of  the  Sem- 
inary implies  the  Founders'  faith  in  the  advancement  of  religious 
knowledge.  The  character  of  the  advisers  of  the  Associate 
Founders,  their  humility,  their  faith  in  doctrinal  progress,  and 
the  school  of  theology  to  which  they  belonged,  concur  to  the  same 
result.  I  have  not  violated  my  obligations  under  the  Creed,  even 
upon  a  close  and  technical  construction  of  them.  And  if,  as  I 
maintain,  the  Creed  is  a  summary  of  principles  which  are  to  be 
applied  and  developed  from  generation  to  generation,  I  have 
done  something  far  better  and  more  faithful  than  a  literal  repeti- 
tion of  them — I  have  used  them,  and  with  them  have  confronted 
present  great  and  important  questions  of  religious  thought  and 
life.  It  is  now  proposed  to  remove  almost  an  entire  Faculty. 
Yet  frequent  articles  from  the  best  thinkers  of  England  and  Ger- 
many find  the  solutions  of  the  difficulties  of  Eschatology  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  intermediate  state.  God  has  put  this  question 
before  the  Church  to-day.  The  Creed  admits  all  that  I  and  my 
associates  have  contended  for. 


xxm 


TESTIMONY    OF    DR.    NETTMAN    SMYTH    AND    PROFESSORS    HARRIS, 
UIXCKS,    AND    TUCKER. 

In  reply  to  questions  asked  by  Professor  Baldwin,  Rev.  New- 
man Smyth.  D.D.,  stated  that,  when  he  was  an  Andover  student. 
Professor  Park,  on  approaching  the  doctrine  of  Eternal  Sonship, 
stated  that  here  we  come  to  a  point  of  divergence  between  the  old 
and  the  new  divines,  and  the  latter  do  not  assert  dogmaticallv  a 
thing  which  should  be  asserted  figuratively.  Professor  Park  also 
atfirmed  that  the  word  "  Son  "  should  be  predicated  of  Christ  in 
his  humanity  rather  than  in  his  divinity,  as  denoting  the  constitu- 
tion of  Christ's  person  in  the  incarnation  in  the  human  life.  He 
also  asserted,  of  course,  the  divine  distinction  —  the  Logos  doc- 
trine. Dr.  Smyth  then  added  the  substance  of  his  statement  to 
the  Visitors  in  1882,  about  accepting  the  Seminary  Creed,  to  the 
effect  that  he  could  accept  and  subscribe  to  it  as  a  whole,  inter- 
preting its  clauses  by  comparison  among  themselves  and  in  accord- 
ance with  the  terms  of  subscription  understood  by  him  to  have 
been  usual,  as  sanctioned  by  the  Visitors.  He  could  not  subscribe 
to  the  Creed  if  required  to  take  each  clause  and  article  by  itself. 
He  specified,  as  an  illustration,  the  clause  relating  to  the  Federal 
Headship. 

Professor  Harris  then  testified  that,  before  his  inauguration, 
being  questioned,  together  with  Professor  Hincks  and  Professor 
Taylor,  by  the  Visitors,  and  the  Creed  being  read  to  them,  he 
objected  to  accepting  some  portions  of  the  Creed  —  referring  for 
example  to  Federal  Headship  and  a  Limited  Atonement  —  but 
that  he  and  they  oflfer.ed,  after  an  explanation  by  Dr.  Eustis  of 
the  sense  in  which  the  Visitors  hold  these  doctrines,  to  take  the 
Creed  with  this  previous  statement :  ••  I  accept  this  Creed  as  ex- 
pressing substantially  the  system  of  truth  taught  in  the  Holv 
Scriptures."  No  objection  was  made,  and  upon  his  inauguration 
this  form  of  statement  was  used  ;  while  before  the  Visitors  he 
also  had  stated  that  he  recognized  the  liberty  of  belief  in  the 
possibility  of  a  future  probation  for  those  who  do  not  have  the 
Gospel  here,  but  had  not  personally  reached  a  conclusion  as  to 
the  truth  of  the  doctrine. 

Professor  Hincks  corroborated  the  recollections  of  Professor 
Harris,  adding  that  the  Visitors  stated  that  they  did  not  take  the 
Creed  verbatim  et  literatim.  Professor  Tucker  also  declared  that 
at  his  inauguration  in  1880  he  made  this  statement  before  signing 


XXIV 

the  Creed  :  "  The  Creed  which  I  am  about  to  read,  aud  to  which  I 
shall  subscribe,  I  fully  accept  as  setting  forth  the  truth  against 
the  errors  which  it  was  designed  to  meet.  No  confession  so  elab- 
orate, and  with  such  intent,  may  assume  to  be  the  final  expression 
of  truth,  or  an  expression  equally  fitted  in  language  or  tone  to  all 
times."     To  this  statement  no  objection  was  made. 

PROFESSOR  Baldwin's  argument. 

Professor  Baldwin  urged  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  Pro- 
fessor Smyth  has  taught  the  obnoxious  doctrine.  In  the  Con- 
gregational body  there  are  two  schools,  one  represented  by  The 
Congregationalist  and  the  other  by  The  Andover  Review.  The 
point  at  issue  is  the  interpretation  of  the  statutes  of  the  Seminary. 
The  Creed  emphasizes  the  constant  revelation  of  Himself  hx  God. 
It  is  a  nineteenth  century  creed  joined  to  a  seventeenth  century 
creed,  and  where  they  differ  the  former  must  control.  To  under- 
stand the  Creed  one  must  read  between  the  lines.  It  is  no  matter 
whether  a  particular  doctrine  was,  or  was  not,  in  the  minds  of  the 
Founders,  if  the  language  of  the  Creed  does  not  forbid  it.  The 
principle  of  the  famous  Dartmouth  College  case  applies  to  this  one  ; 
that  is,  it  is  only  necessary  that  the  Creed  cover  the  doctrine.  The 
Board  of  Visitors  always  has  shown  catholicit}'  in  interpreting  tlie 
Creed.  The  doctrine  of  a  future  probation  has  been  found  useful 
to  many  minds  in  opposition  to  agnosticism.  It  will  be  impossible 
to  secure  professors  hereafter  except  upon  the  construction  of  the 
Creed  which  we  favor,  and  the  Supreme  Court  may  feel  bound  to 
interfere,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  cy  pres,  aud  cause  the 
funds  to  be  applied  to  some  other  use,  as  near  to  the  purpose  of 
the  donors  as  possible. 

HON.  c.  T.  Russell's  argument. 

Mr.  Eussell  opened  with  reminiscences  of  his  own  service  as 
one  of  the  Visitors,  and  devoted  himself  specially  to  showing, 
from  the  history  of  the  institution  and  the  decision  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  in  the  Norris  case,  that  ample  liberty  of  interpretation 
of  the  Creed  always  has  been,  and  now  ought  to  be,  allowed. 
Said  he  :  Since  1844,  no  Professor  on  the  Associate  Foundation 
has  been  compelled  to  take  any  other  than  the  Associate  Creed. 
This  Board  often  has  so  decided.  The  issue  is  whether  Professor 
Smyth  has  done  or  taught  anything  proving  his  subscription  to 


■liiHiil^HHHKiiiliiaBHiKilKl 


XXV 

this  Creed  for  the  past  thirteen  years  to  be  dishonest,  unintelligent, 
evasive,  or  criminal.  Does  he  teach  anything  inconsistent  with 
sound  Calvinism,  and  therefore  heterodox?  In  taking  the  Creed, 
room  must  be  allowed  for  sincere  and  honest  differences  of 
opinion  within  reasonable  limits.  Otherwise,  the  framers  of  it 
were  heterodox  towards  each  other.  The  Creed  was  made  for  the 
Seminary,  and  not  the  Seminary  for  the  Creed.  It  was  made  iron- 
clad enough  to  be  secure,  yet  broad  enough  to  tolerate  Orthodoxy. 
The  speaker  then  argued  at  length  from  the  Norris  case.  This 
case,  he  believed,  settles  the  right  of  interpreting  the  Creed 
lilierally.  But,  only  two  months  after  the  decision  of  Judge 
Thacher,  the  seven  years'  experimental  coalition  of  Trustees  and 
Visitors  ended.  Then  was  the  time  for  a  change  to  have  been 
made,  had  one  been  desired.  But  the  union  involving  the  Asso- 
ciate Foundation  was  made  perpetual,  although  Moses  Brown, 
the  subsequent  Founder  of  Professor  Smyth's  chair,  then  was  a 
Visitor.  Four  years  later  he  established  this  professorship,  know- 
ing well  of  the  liberal  construction  which  the  Supreme  Court  had 
put  upon  the  Creed.  Other  Professors  have  been  charged  with 
heresy,  but  never  put  upon  trial,  and  the  Visitors  in  1882  only 
rejected  Rev.  Newman  Smyth,  D.D.,  because  of  alleged  intel- 
lectual and  literary  unfitness,  although  he  then  was  well  known  as 
an  advocate  of  probation  after  death.  Three  fourths  of  the 
funds  of  the  institution  have  been  given  to  the  Seminary  since  the 
liberal  construction  of  its  Creed.  If  the  respondents  should  be 
convicted,  the  disintegration  of  the  Congregational  denomination 
is  to  be  feared. 

EX-GOVERXOR    GASTON's    ARGOIENT. 

Ex-Governor  Gaston  warmly  commended  the  character  and 
ability  of  his  client,  Professor  Smyth,  and  went  on  to  urge  that, 
were  this  a  suit  for  breach  of  trust,  it  ought  to  have  been  brought 
by  the  heirs  of  the  donors.  This  is  a  prosecution  for  non-con- 
formity to  a  certain  creed.  Its  logical  outcome  is  that  you  are 
asked  to  decide  that  falsehoods  may  be  taught  at  Andover.  The 
complainants  must  prove  something.  But  no  pupils  of  the  re- 
spondent have  been  brought  here  to  testify  against  him.  "Who 
shall  say  that  he  does  not  believe  all  the  doctrines  of  the  Creed, 
when  he  says  that  he  does  ?  The  Creed  is  not  narrow  and 
bigoted,  but,  taken  in  its  entiretv,  as  it  ought  to  be,  it  is  broad 


XXVI 

and  elastic.  The  exti-acts  presented  by  the  other  side  do  not 
violate  the  Creed,  if  they  be  taken  fairly.  There  never  was  a 
time  in  the  history  of  Andover  when  fewer  charges  of  heresy 
could  have  been  made  than  now.  If  you  fetter  or  trammel  or 
admonish  these  gentlemen,  the  days  of  their  usefulness  at  Andover 
will  be  over.  To  do  either  would  be  an  outrage.  You  are  before 
the  tribunal  of  intelligent,  honest.  Christian  public  opinion. 

PROF.    W.    J.    tucker's    statement. 

I  and  the  respondents  who  may  follow  me  adopt  the  views 
of  Professor  Smyth  as  to  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary  and  the  terms 
of  subscription  to  it,  and  also  his  answer  to  the  charges  and  speci- 
fications of  the  complainants.  I  am  charged  with  heterodoxy, 
and  with  not  being  "  an  Orthodox  and  consistent  Calvinist."  I 
accept  fully  my  share  of  editorial  responsibility.  Between  what 
I  teach  and  what  I  publish  I  make  only  this  distinction  :  I  try  to 
teach  according  to  the  natural  proportion  of  truth.  I  publish 
according  to  the  demands  of  public  necessity,  subject  only  to  the 
requirements  of  the  Constitution  and  Creed  of  the  Seminary.  My 
defence  covers  first  my  personal,  and  secondly  my  oflScial,  relation 
to  the  Creed.  The  theology  of  the  book  ' '  Progressive  Orthodoxy  " 
is  a  natural  and  legitimate  outcome  of  the  Seminary  Creed,  es- 
pecially as  to  the  theory  of  probation.  We  came  to  our  chairs 
from  the  pastorate,  not  from  fields  of  speculative  thought, 
but  from  contact  with  men.  and  we  brought  with  us  those  concep- 
tions of  Christian  truth  which  we  have  since  tried  to  unfold.  I 
am  conscious  of  holding  no  other  Gospel  to-day  than  that  which 
I  held  in  my  active  ministry.  I  speak  now  as  an  alumnus,  rather 
than  as  a  professor.  I  am  an  Orthodox  and  consistent  Calvin- 
ist, but  I  do  not  put  Calvin  above  Christ.  Calvinism  emphasizes 
the  "  power  of  God  unto  salvation,"  but,  in  its  older  and  higher 
forms,  it  limits  the  appUcation  of  the  power.  The  Creed  gives  to 
this  idea  of  power  breadth  and  freedom.  The  current  which  runs 
through  the  Creed  is  Calvinism,  and  the  Creed  widens  its  banks  to 
accommodate  the  current.  The  natural  culmination  of  the  Cal- 
vinism of  the  Creed  is  the  hope  which  I  entertain  without  equivo- 
cation, the  hope  that  God  will  cause  all  souls  to  come  into  some 
real  relation  to  Christ's  atoning  sacrifice  before  any  soul  passes 
into  the  eternal  condemnation,  and  I  protest  against  being  charged 
with    heterodoxy  on  this  account.     The  complainants*  theory  is 


xxvu 

more  like  Unitariauism  thau  mine  is.  The  method  of  the  theology 
which  is  called  in  question  also  best  satisfies  the  requirements  of 
the  Creed  in  respect  to  the  conduct  of  my  professorship.  I  ac- 
cepted the  Creed  at  my  inauguration  as  setting  forth  the  truth 
ao-ainst  the  errors  designed  to  be  met.  Men's  ditHculties  are  not 
so  much  with  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  itself,  as  with  errors 
in  the  manner  of  its  presentation.  ••  Progressive  Orthodoxy" 
emphasizes  the  present  as  the  time  to  repent,  and  the  fact  that 
to  offer  salvation  without  the  previous  offer  of  Christ  would  be 
useless.  I  ask  for  no  charitable  construction,  but  for  information 
how  to  deal  with  the  Creed  in  teaching  men  to  preach.  The 
Seminary  now  has  forty-eight  students,  and  is  second  in  numbers 
of  the  four  in  New  England  in  respect  to  regular  students.  Its 
funds  were  increased  intelligently  by  $80,000  during  the  past 
year,  and  the  full  quota  of  men  is  offered  to  the  American  Board. 

PROF.    GEORGE    HARRIS'S    STATEMENT. 

"\^^len  it  was  proposed  to  me  to  become  the  Abbot  Professor,  I 
was  a  pastor  in  Providence.  I  had  not  made  a  thorough  exami- 
nation of  the  Andover  Creed.  "When  I  made  one,  I  was  favorably 
impressed  with  its  bi-eadth  of  statement  on  the  doctrines  of  the 
Bible,  the  Person  and  Work  of  Christ,  and  Eschatology.  It  goes 
no  farther  than  to  indicate  the  religious  function  of  the  Bible, 
and  it  distinguishes  the  AVord  of  God  from  the  Scriptures,  or 
writings,  that  contain  it.  It  expresses  the  doctrine  of  the  Person 
of  Christ  in  the  statement  of  the  Symbol  of  Chalcedon,  the  best 
ever  framed.  The  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  is  stated  generally, 
and  with  complete  reserve  as  to  its  philosophy.  The  doctrine  of 
Eschatology  is  uttered  in  more  materialistic  language  than  I  should 
have  chosen,  but  presents  no  other  difficulty.  I  had  not  then  ac- 
cepted the  opinion  for  which  I  now  am  blamed,  but  I  did  not 
understand  that  I  must  definitely  reject  it.  I  believed  that  under 
the  Creed  there  is  liberty  to  hold  the  opinion  that  those  who  do  not 
have  the  Gospel  in  this  life  may  have  it  in  the  life  to  come.  I 
never  had  believed,  nor  do  I  now  believe,  that  any  man  has  a 
second  probation  under  the  Gospel.  I  had  some  difficulty  with 
the  doctrines  of  Federal  Headship,  Natural  and  Moral  Ability, 
Election,  etc.  But  I  decided  that  the  statements  of  these  stand 
for  essential  facts  and  doctrines,  the  substance  of  which  is  more 
real  to  me  than  the  utterances  of  the  Creed  themselves.     I  sub- 


niitted  my  difflculties  to  the  Board  of  Visitors,  and  tlicy  agreed 
that  the  Creed  should  be  taken  as  expressing  substantially  the 
system  of  ti'uth  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  AVe  are  opposed 
by  the  complainants  not  so  much  because  our  doctrines  are  an- 
tagonistic to  the  Creed,  as  because  our  opinions  differ  from  their 
own.  I  have  decided  that,  in  the  case  of  the  Abbot  Professor,  a 
legal  reference  to  the  Catechism  is  appropriate,  but  that  the  Creed 
determines  the  sense  in  which  those  portions  of  the  Catechism 
shall  be  taken  which  are  found  in  both  instruments.  The  hypoth- 
esis which  I  entertain  as  to  probation  removes  some  serious  objec- 
tions, and  harmonizes  certain  essential  doctrines  of  the  Gospel 
with  the  Providence  of  God  ;  but  it  is  of  secondary  rather  than 
primary  value,  an  inference  from  essential  doctrines  rather  than 
an  essential  doctrine  itself.  The  most  serious  charge  against  me 
relates  to  the  Atonement.  Its  author  understands  the  Creed  to 
be  committed  to  the  "governmental"  theory.  But  whatever  is 
true  in  that  theory  is  included  in  the  presentation  of  the  subject 
in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy."  My  language  also  has  been 
misquoted,  as  certain  citations  prove.  The  two  parties  to  this 
dispute  approach  the  truth  from  opposite  sides,  or  the  one  from 
the  outside  and  the  other  from  the  centre  within.  It  is  perhaps 
easier  for  the  former  to  state  beliefs  clearly,  but  the  latter  party  is 
more  in  line  with  the  vigorous  movement  of  modern  religious 
thought.  The  Founders  represented  both  parties.  The  phrase  as 
to  the  unalterableness  of  the  Creed  has  been  misunderstood. 
It  was  only  meant  to  prevent  legislation  by  the  Trustees  or 
Visitors. 

PROF.    E.    Y.    HINCKS'S    STATEMENT. 

My  work  is  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures.  This  includes 
tracing  out  the  leading  thoughts  as  well  as  the  subordinate  ideas. 
The  meaning  of  the  language  of  the  inspired  writers  is  to  be 
ascertained  by  the  use  of  the  best  grammatical,  etymological,  and 
illustrative  helps  at  one's  command.  As  to  historical  questions, 
the  laws  of  research  in  one  field  must  govern  it  in  all  fields.  But 
my  study  is  ruled  by  the  conviction  that  the  Scriptures  are  super- 
naturally  given,  and  carry  the  absolute  authority  of  our  divine 
Redeemer.  They  are  the  prime  source  of  Christian  knowledge, 
and  the  final  test  of  Christian  belief.  All  parts  of  a  revelation 
relate  to  its  centre,  and  this  implies  historical  study,  the  faithful 
use  of  historical  methods,  and  the  honest  recognition  of  results. 


XXIX 

My  lauguago  also  has  been  misquoted.  Both  my  belief  and  teach- 
ing have  been  true  to  the  principles  of  the  Creed,  but  the  Creed 
does  allow  some  liberty  in  its  interpretation.  The  Founders  re- 
garded the  Bible  as  the  depository  of  divine  truth,  and  must  have 
expected  progress  in  respect  to  its  interpretation.  The  require- 
ment of  a  renewal  of  subscription  shows  that  they  recognized  a 
necessary  movement  of  mind  in  the  study  of  divine  truth,  and 
meant  that  progressive  study  should  be  within  the  great  lines  of 
the  Creed. 

PROF.  J.  Av.  Churchill's  statement. 

I  do  not  seek,  in  replying  to  the  charges  against  me,  to  evade 
my  share  of  editorial  responsibility,  nor  to  imply  that  I  am  not 
in  perfect  sympathy  with  the  spirit  and  aim  of  the  movement 
known  as  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  although  I  do  not  accept 
every  inference  from  some  of  its  positions.  I  have  availed  myself 
of  the  occasion  of  this  trial  to  secure  a  decision  whether  the 
Jones  Professorship,  which  I  occupy,  is  or  is  not  strictly  under  the 
control  of  the  Board  of  Visitors.  I  accept  fully  Rev.  Dr.  D.  T. 
Fiske's  exposition  of  the  Seminary  Creed.  I  took  that  Creed,  as 
Professor  Phelps  told  me  that  he  and  others  had  taken  it,  "  in  its 
historic  sense  and  for  substance  of  doctrine."  But  no  creed  can 
cover  all  the  subjects  of  theological  inquiry  and  discussion  that 
constantly  emerge  in  the  gradual  development  of  the  aspects  of 
truth.  I  cannot  believe  that  every  soul's  life  in  the  Fatherhood 
of  God  will  have  its  moral  discipline  ended  with  its  earthly 
career ;  but  undoubtedly  there  are  souls  existing  both  in  this 
world  and  the  next  that  forever  will  resist  the  Divine  purpose  and 
means  in  discipline.  The  spiritual  results  in  holy  character  in 
the  great  multitude  of  the  redeemed  in  the  eternal  world  are  the 
same,  in  my  view  of  the  future  life,  that  the  advocates  of  a  con- 
tinued probation  for  the  mass  of  the  evangelically  unprivileged 
hope  to  see  gloriously  realized.  The  hypothesis  of  Continued 
Probation  does  not  militate  against  the  distinguishing  and  essen- 
tial doctrines  which  the  Seminary  Creed  affirms,  and  I  claim  for 
my  colleagues  their  liberty  of  opinion,  teaching,  and  discussioa 
concerning  it.     I  also  believe  there  is  reason  and  Scripture  in  it. 


^WMHHIIIHiH 


ARGUMENT  OF   HON.   ASA   FRENCH. 


Mr.  President,  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Board  of  Visitors  : 

I  HAVE  listened  with  very  great  interest,  with  instruction,  and  I 
trust,  also,  with  profit,  to  the  learned  and  eloquent  arguments 
which  have  been  addressed  to  you  by  the  other  side.  Neverthe- 
less, much  of  what  has  been  said  by  counsel  —  they  will  pardon  me 
for  saying  —  has  seemed  to  me  to  be  somewhat  discursive,  and 
wholly  outside  of  the  real  question  at  issue  in  this  case.  And  it 
may  not  be  inappropriate,  at  this  stage  of  the  proceedings,  after 
two  full  days  have  been  consumed  in  presenting  these  arguments, 
to  recall  the  maxim  of  good  old  Dr.  Witherspoon,  of  blessed  mem- 
ory.    It  was  this  :  — 

"In  public  speaking,  avoid  all  hard  words;  if  j'ou  have  any- 
thing to  say,  say  it,  and,  when  you  have  said  it,  stop." 

I  shall  endeavor,  Mr.  President,  in  what  I  shall  say,  to  conform 
to  this  excellent  maxim. 

Much  complaint  has  lieen  made  by  the  learned  counsel  that  we 
gave  them  no  suflicient  notice  beforehand  of  what  our  charges  were 
—  that  we  made  no  formal  opening  at  this  trial,  but  contented  our- 
selves with  putting  in  our  documentary  evidence,  and  there  rested. 
And  they  would  have  it  understood  that  we  have  thus  taken  an 
unfair  advantage. 

It  is  the  first  time  in  my  oliservation  that  such  able  and  eminent 
gentlemen  of  the  bar  as  represent  the  Respondent  here,  have 
argued  a  question  for  ten  mortal  hours  without  knowing  what  the 
issue  was,  and  that  a  Respondent,  speaking  in  his  own  behalf,  has 
occupied  nearly  half  that  time  in  attempting  to  refute  ambiguous 
charges,  which  were,  nevertheless,  so  clear  to  his  ai)prehension 
that  he  could  denounce  them  as  frivolous  and  utterly  groundless  I 

Why,  there  is  not  a  single  person  who  has  read  these  cliarges 
and  specifications,  as  they  have  appeared  in  the  public  prints,  who 


does  not  know,  and  know  exactl}-,  what  the  charges  are  which  this 
Respondent  is  called  upon  to  meet. 

It  was  not,  Mr.  President,  until  after  the  commencement  of  this 
trial,  that  I  had  expected  to  take  any  part  in  the  discussion.  The 
questions  at  issue  seemed  to  belong  so  largely  to  the  domain  of 
theology,  to  the  true  interpretation  of  the  Andover  Creed,  and  the 
proper  construction  to  be  put  upon  the  published  writings  of  the 
Respondent  when  examined  in  the  light  of  that  Creed,  that  I  did 
not  feel  myself  competent  to  render  any  assistance  to  this  Reverend 
and  Honorable  Board  in  the  discharge  of  the  grave  and  solemn 
duty  which  devolves  upon  it. 

But,  at  the  suggestion  of  my  associates,  I  venture  to  comment 
briefly  upon  some  of  the  points  raised  by  the  other  side. 

Need  I  say,  Mr.  President,  that  our  evidence  and  arguments  are 
addressed  to  this  tribunal,  and  not  to  the  public,  for  with  3-ou,  and 
you  alone,  rests  the  determination  of  this  momentous  question. 
However  pleasant  the  applause  of  the  crowd,  we  are  not  now  seek- 
ing for  that,  but  rather  to  convince  you,  Gentlemen  of  the  Board, 
that  the  substantial  charges  set  out  in  this  complaint  have  been 
sustained,  and  that  Professor  .Smyth  has  '•  maintained  and  incul- 
cated "  doctrines  inconsistent  with,  and  subversive  of ,  the  Andover 
Creed,  —  a  fact  which  these  complainants  conscientiously  and  reli- 
giously believe,  the  epithets  and  sneers  of  the  Respondent,  and 
some  of  his  counsel,  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

I  shall  indulge  in  no  unkind  words —  (I  regret  that  they  have 
felt  it  necessary  to  do  so)  —  for  I  harbor  no  unkind  feelings. 

The  learned  counsel  who  opened  this  case  for  the  defence  ^  com- 
mented with  much  severity  upon  the  form  in  which,  it  was  first 
brought  to  your  attention.  He  grew  quite  facetious,  also,  over  the 
fact  that  one  of  the  signers  to  the  original  paper  presented  to  you, 
had  appended  the  word  '•  Trustee  "  to  his  signature,  and  that  they, 
had  all  represented  themselves  to  be  a  "Committee  of  certain  of 
the  Alumni,"  whereas  in  the  amended  complaint  no  such  words 
of  designation  were  used,  but  their  names  only  were  affixed,  and 
that  by  attornej'. 

And  he  plainly  charged  that  the  claim  on  their  part  that  they 
were  acting  as  representatives  of  anybody  else  was  an  assumption 
and  a  pretence.  ''Studied  duplicity"  was  the  courteous  terra 
which  he  applied  to  it;  and  he  added  that  ••conduct  like  this  at 
the  Bar  would  gain  the  scorn  of  the  legal  profession  ; ' '  and  that 

J  Prof.  T.  W.  D wight. 


ilK"  signers  had  "forfeited  the  confidence  of  all  candid,  truth- 
spoaking  men  I  " 

This  is  strong  language  towards  such  eminent  gentlemen  as  ap- 
pear in  this  complaint,  and  it  is  unpardonable  language,  unless 
supported  by  the  facts. 

What  are  the  facts,  and  in  what  does  this  •'  studied  duplicity  " 
consist  ? 

On  the  ()th  of  July,  of  the  present  year,  the  original  complaint 
was  presented  to  this  Board,  signed  by  these  three  gentlemen  as  a 
committee  of  certain  of  the  Alumni,  and  by  one  of  them,  Dr.  "Well- 
man,  as  a  Trustee  of  Phillips  Academy,  which  nobody  denies  that 
he  was  and  is.  Nowhere  does  he  claim,  even  by  inference,  in  this 
proceeding,  to  act  for  any  other  member  of  that  Board,  and  any 
suggestion  to  the  contrary,  whensoever,  or  by  whomsoever,  made, 
is  al)solutely  without  foundation. 

It  would  have  been  entirely  competent  and  proper  for  them  to 
file  these  charges  in  their  individual  capacity,  but  they  chose  the 
other  form  because,  in  fact,  they  had  been  selected  as  a  committee 
for  the  purpose  ;  and  the  deliberate  declaration  of  three  gentlemen, 
whose  integrity  and  veracity  the  counsel  has  the  honor  of  ques- 
tioning for  the  first  time,  I  put  against  his  unsupported  imputation  ! 

Having  thus  called  the  attention  of  your  Honorable  Board  to 
these  charges,  they  understood  that  their  duty  in  the  premises  was 
ended,  and  that  you  would  proceed  with  the  investigation  in  your 
own  time  and  way. 

Due  notice  of  the  complaint  was  given  to  the  Respondent,  and 
to  his  co-Respondents,  —  (for  thej'  were  all  joined  in  that  com- 
plaint) ,  —  and  they  were  called  upon  to  make  answer.  But,  instead 
of  an  answer  to  the  merits,  admitting  or  denying  the  charges,  there 
came  a  paper,  prepared  b}-  able  and  acute  couusel.  in  the  nature  of  a 
demurrer,  or  plea  in  abatement,  setting  up  every  conceivable  techni- 
cal objection  to  the  consideration  of  these  charges  by  your  Board. 

Whether  this  course  was  taken  because  they,  or  their  counsel, 
distrusted  the  wisdom,  integrity  and  impartiality  of  this  tribunal,  or 
because  they  preferred  a  tribunal  which  had  already  prejudged  the 
case,  or  for  whatever  other  reason,  I  know  not. 

These  objections  were,  — 

1.  That  this  Board  has  not  original  jurisdiction  of  the  subject 
matter.^ 

>  The  Supreme  Court  of  this  State,  Chief  Justice  Parker  delivering  the  opinion,  in  the 
Murdock  case,  7  Pick.  303,  expressly  decides  that  the  Board  has  original  jurisdiction  over 
such  matters. 


2.  That,  even  if  this  Board  has  jurisdiction,  the  Trustees  of 
the  Institution  were  ah-eady  considering  the  same  charges,  and 
that,  by  well  settled  rules  of  law,  the  later  proceeding  must  give 
way  to  the  earlier.^ 

3.  That  the  case  is  not  presented  according  to  the  law  laid 
down  in  the  Murdock  case,  and  that  the  Complainants  have  no 
legal  standing  in  Court. 

4.  That  the  Respondents  cannot  legally  be  joined  in  the  same 
complaint. 

5.  That  the  charges  are  too  indefinite  and  vague. 

6.  That  some  of  the  specifications  relate  to  matters  not  in  the 
Creed,  and  so  are  not  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Visitors,  and  — 

7.  That  the  proceedings  are  irregular  in  other  respects. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  we  make  no  complaint  at  tWs  course  on  the 
part  of  the  Respondents.  They  had  an  undoubted  legal  right  to 
resort  to  it,  and  so  to  prevent,  if  possible,  a  hearing  upon  the  real 
questions  at  issue  ;  and  I  refer  to  it  only  as  a  part  of  the  history 
of  this  case,  and  because  v:e  have  been  charged  with  being  '•  tech- 
nical and  narrow  I  " 

At  the  hearing  upon  these  objections,  October  28th,  the  Com- 
plainants appeared,  and,  through  counsel,  admitting  that  they  had 
no  legal  right  to  conduct  the  trial  on  the  charges,  submitted  them- 
selves to  the  direction  of  the  Board. 

And  whatever  part  we  have  since  taken  in  these  proceedings 
has  been  with  your  approval,  at  your  request,  and  as  your 
servants. 

The  dilatory  pleas,  to  which  I  have  referred,  after  full  argu- 
ment, were  all  overruled,  except  that  your  Board  decreed  that  the 
charges  should  be  so  amended  as  to  proceed  against  the  Respond- 
ents separately,  and  that  such  charges  as  were  indefinite  should 
be  made  plain  liy  further  specifications. 

In  compliance  with  this  decree,  the  amended  complaint  was  pre- 
pared as  it  now  stands.  It  contains  no  new  matter,  except  as  it 
sets  out  quotations  from  published  articles  and  works  of  the  Re- 
spondents in  support  of  the  charges. 

1  On  Jan.  12,  1SS6,  Dr.  Wellman  presented  to  the  Board  of  Trustees,  of  which  he  was  a 
member,  a  resolution,  reciting,  in  substance,  that,  whereas,  it  was  understood  that  doctrines 
were  being  inculcated  by  certain  Professors  at  the  Seminary  not  in  accordance  with  the 
Creed,  therefore  the  Board  of  Trustees  requent  the  Board  of  Visitors  to  investigate  the  mat- 
ter. The  Trustees  having  declined  to  adopt  this  resolution,  on  the  6th  of  July  following,  the 
present  complaint  was  died  before  the  Visitors.  Xo  similar  complaint  has  ever  been  pend- 
ing before  the  Trustees. 


In  that  form,  simply  for  convenience,  it  was  signed  by  counsel 
on  behalf  of  the  Complainants.  I  had  no  doubt  then,  nor  have  I 
any  now,  that  this  was  a  perfectly  legal  and  proper  act.  At  any 
rate,  I  assume  the  entire  responsibility  of  it,  for  the  Complainants 
had  nothing  whatsoever  to  do  with  it. 

So  much,  Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen,  for  the  full  preliminary 
history  of  this  case,  —  and  so  much  for  that  charge  of  duplicity 
and  deceit. 

Passing  from  this  subject,  let  us  ascertain,  if  we  can,  the  theory 
on  which  this  case  is  defended,  because  client  aud  counsel  do  not 
appear  to  be  in  perfect  accord  upon  that  point. 

The  key-note  of  the  defence,  as  sounded  by  the  same  counsel  in 
his  opening,  was  au  attack  upon  the  Creed.  He  had  not  a  single 
word  in  commendation  of  it. 

Let  me  make  a  few  quotations  from  his  printed  argument  upon 
this  point :  — 

It  [the  Creed]  is  meant  as  a  clog  upon  instruction  and  may  turn  out  to 
be  a  prohibition  against  instruction  in  the  truth.  It  says  to  a  body  of  teach- 
ers: ''  You  must  not  teach  doctrines  because  they  are  true,  but  because  we, 
the  founders,  impose  them  upon  you."  .  .  . 

The  teacher  is  thus  emasculated  and  the  growth  of  the  scholar  is  one- 
sided and  dwarfed.  In  the  name,  not  only  of  the  professors  under  trial,  but 
of  all  teachers  of  the  land,  including,  I  hope,  the  Chairman  of  this  Board, 
I  respectfully  protest  against  such  shackles  of  iron  upon  education.  — 
[Printed  Argument  of  Prof.  Dwight.  pp.  19,  20.] 

They  [the  professors]  are  met  at  the  entrance  with  a  ponderous  Creed, 
smelling  of  antiquity  and  the  outcome  of  the  fiery  struggles  of  ancient  days 
—  contests  of  which  we  have  little  or  no  knowledge  and,  with  what  we  have, 
as  little  sympathy.  Its  words  are  technical  and  uncouth.  Its  clauses  are 
confused  and  contradictory.  —  [p.  20.] 

To  tie  an  institution  to  such  a  creed  seems  like  anchoring  a  vessel  in 
the  swift  current  of  a  flowing  stream  antid  the  mud  and  rnhbish  of  bygone 
ages;  so  the  Phillipses,  Browns  and  Abbots,  noble  in  their  intentions  and 
sincere  Christians,  but  erring  in  sound  judginent,  bedded  their  little  institu- 
tion on  the  hills  of  Andover  among  the  mud  and  rubbish  of  extinct  contro- 
versies. —  [pp.  20,  21.] 

I  admit  that  there  is  a  color  for  the  vieio  that  some  portions  of  the  creeds 
of  Aug.  31,  1807,  and  March  21,  1808,  .  .  .  represent  to  an  extent  what  may 
fairly  be  called  the  intolerance  of  orthodoxy.  .  ,  .  —  [p.  45.] 

Elusive  phrases  icere  sought  for.  —  [p.  47.] 

The  Andover  Creed  does  not  represent  the  original  seamless  robe  of  Cal- 
vinism, but,  rather,  Joseph's  coat  of  varied  colors,  —  one  patch  of  royal 
purple  in  its  very  centre,  one  wholly  colorless,  viz.,  the  ^corporeal  straigth' 
to  repent,  surrounded,  it  may  be,  by  a  dark,  cold  border  of  unmitigated  CaU 
vinism.  —  [pp.  oS,  59.] 


8 

Again,  "  Tlie  Andover  Creed  is  the  most  mysterious  of  cdf  — 
[p.  59.] 

Upon  page  37,  he  speaks  of  it  as  a  "-dreary  Creed  "  ;  and  upon 
page  G7,  '^  The}'  [the  founders]  for  a  special  reason  established  a 
creed  mainly  remarkable  for  its  glaring  inconsistencies." 

He  even  declared  that  it  was  impossible  to  reconcile  this  Creed 
with  the  Westminster  Catechism,  thus  putting  himself  in  antago- 
nism with  the  opinion  of  the  Board  of  Visitors  in  1844.  upon  which 
so  much  stress  is  laid  by  the  Respondent,  in  which  the}'  say  that 
they  can  see  no  inconsistency  between  the  two.  [Woods's  History 
of  Andover  Theo.  Sem.  p.  430.] 

That  opinion  held,  it  is  true,  that  a  professor  upon  the  Associate 
Foundation  —  as  is  Prof.  Smyth  —  is  not  required  to  subscribe 
to  the  Westminster  Catechism,  as  is  required  iu  the  case  of  a  pro- 
fessor upon  the  Original  Foundation. 

While  we  attach  little  or  no  importance  to  this  opinion  as  appli- 
cable to  the  present  case  :  that  it  was  subsequently  dissented  from 
in  carefully  written  opinions  by  such  eminent  authorities  as  Dr. 
Woods,  Dr.  Dana.  John  H.  Clifford,  Chief  Justice  Joel  Parker. 
Prof.  Simon  Greeuleaf .  Judge  Theron  Metcalf .  and  Samuel  Farrar, 
certainly  impairs  its  weight. 

Now  the  necessary  logical  conclusion  from  this  part  of  Prof. 
Dwight's  argument  is,  that  the  Andover  Creed  ought  to  be  ignored 
and  put  aside  whenever  it  conflicts  with  the  new  theology;  and 
that  whatever  doctrine  any  professor  can  honestly  declare  is  better. 
"  according  to  the  best  light  God  has  given  him."  should  be  sub- 
stituted in  its  place, —  a  proposition  which,  under  the  perfectly 
well  established  principles  of  law  relating  to  charitable  trusts,  is 
utterly  indefensible. 

But  the  learued  counsel  still  further  insists  that  the  words 
'^  maintain  and  inculcate.''  wherever  they  occur  iu  the  Associate 
Creed  to  which  Prof.  Smyth  is  required  to  subscribe,  are  to  be 
interpreted  as  applying  only  to  the  work  of  instruction  in  the  Semi- 
nary,  or.  to  put  it  more  tersely,  in  the  language  of  his  associate. 
Prof.  Baldwin,  ''When  v:e  teach  this,  doctrine  [probation  after 
death]  to  our  jntjnls,  it  icill  be  time  to  make  this  charge.''' 

In  other  words,  any  professor  in  the  Andover  Seminary  may 
advocate  every  conceivcdjle  heresy  in  the  public  press,  but,  if  he  is 
irrudently  silent  upon  the  subject  in  his  lecture-room,  he  cannot  be 
molested .' 

From  such  sentiments  it  is  refreshing  to  turu  to  the  position  of 


the  Respondent,  as  explained  by  himself,  for  he  repudiates  them, 
as  an  honest  man  should  and  must.  In  his  exceedingly  able  and 
scholarly  defence,  he  met  the  questions  presented  in  a  frank  and 
manly  way,  and  did  not  attempt  to  skulk  l)eliind  any  cover  which 
his  counsel  had  set  u^)  for  him,  and  I  thank  liim  for  it.  He  avows 
his  full  belief  in  the  Creed,  as  he  interprets  it,  and  admits  that  to 
publicly  advocate  doctrines  repugnant  to  that  Creed  iDiyichere,  or 
in  tvJtatever  manner,  would  be  a  violation  of  his  obligation. 

"We  do  not  concur  either  in  his  rule  of  interpretation  or  in  the 
soundness  of  his  conclusions  ;  l)ut  we  do  concede  that,  upon  his 
admissions,  the  issue  is  fairly  presented. 

That  issue  is  this,  (and,  after  the  discussion  to  which  we  have 
listened  for  the  past  two  days,  it  is  well  to  recall  it)  :  — 

In  the  years  1807  and  1808,  at  Andover,  upon  two  foundations, 
which  in  the  latter  year  were  brought  under  the  same  Declaration 
of  Faith,  was  established,  in  connection  with  Phillips  Academ}-,  a 
Theological  Seminar}',  which  has  been  maintained  to  the  present 
time. 

Intelligent,  benevolent.  God-fearing  persons  gave  liberally  of 
their  substance  to  endow  it. 

They  knew  zvhat  they  believed  and  intended  to  he  taught  in  that 
Seminary. 

My  brother  Dwight,  it  is  true,  thinks,  that  if  they  could  have 
listened  to  his  argument,  they  might  have  modified  their  views. 
But.  unfortunately,  perhaps,  for  them,  and  possibly  for  the  world 
at  large,  they  were  denied  that  privilege,  and  were  compelled 
to  proceed  with  such  assistance  as  was  then  attainable,  or,  in  the 
language  of  that  much  abused  phrase  in  the  Creed  so  often 
repeated  in  the  arguments  for  the  defence,  "  according  to  the  best 
light  God  had  given  them."  Their  purpose  was  to  insure  the 
inculcation  of  the  religious  tenets  which  they  entertained,  so  long 
as  their  money  should  be  used  to  support  the  Seminary. 

They  therefore  prescribed  a  Declaration  of  Faith,  to  which  every 
professor  was  required  to  subscribe  on  entering  office,  and  to  re- 
{)eat  every  five  years  thereafter. 

With  prophetic  vision  they  looked  forward  to  the  time  —  possi- 
bly to  this  very  time  —  when  some  acute  lawyer  should  insist  that 
tlie  Creed  which  they  were  framing  with  so  many  prayers  "smelt 
of  antiquity,"  was  intended  as  "  a  clog  upon  instruction,"  that  its 
words  were  "technical  and  uncouth,"  and  its  clauses  ''confused 
and  contradictory,"  and,  therefore,  that  in  some  way  it  must  be 


10 

brushed  aside  tx)  make  way  for  a  "  new  departure  !  "  It  may  be, 
even,  that  they  anticipated  the  contingency  that  some  professor  in 
the  Seminary,  under  the  plea  that  he  had  accepted  the  Creed  "  for 
substance,"  and  in  a  qualified  sense,  would  claim  the  right  to  ''  hold 
and  inculcate"  the  doctrine  (or  dogma)  of  probation  after  death, 
for  example. 

And,  in  order  to  guard  in  the  most  stringent  manner  against 
such  a  possibility,  they  inserted  this  provision  immediately  follow- 
ing the  Creed  :  — 

It  is  strictly  and  solemnly  enjoined,  and  left  in  sacred  charge,  that  every 
Article  of  the  above-said  Creed  shall  forever  remain  entirely  and  Identically 
the  same,  without  the  least  alteration,  addition  or  diminution. 

Could  more  vigorous  language  be  found  to  express  the  determi- 
nation on  the  part  of  the  Founders  that  this  Creed  was  never  to  be 
stretched  nor  curtailed,  to  admit  of  the  teaching  of  any  doctrines 
not  plainly  sanctioned  by  it ! 

Prof.  Smyth  has  voluutarilj'  taken  upon  himself  the  obligation 
which  the  Andover  Creed,  thus  strictly  guarded,  imposes. 

Has  he  fidjilled  that  obligation  according  to  its  true  interpretationf 
is  the  grave  question  which  you,  Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen,  are 
now  called  upon  to  decide. 

I  am  not,  for  a  single  moment,  even  suggesting  bad  faith,  or 
wrong  motives,  on  his  part :  our  case  does  not  require  it,  and,  if  it 
did,  there  is  nothing  in  the  evidence  to  justify  any  such  imputation. 
That  Christian  charity  which  has  not  been  accorded  to  us,  we  freely 
extend  to  him. 

If,  with  the  best  intention,  and  from  the  purest  motives,  he  has 
come  short  of  the  requirements  of  that  obligation,  in  any  essential 
particular,  the  charge  agaiust  him  is  made  out. 

Nor  will  it  be  a  sufficient  answer  to  say,  ••  I  acted  according  to 
the  best  light  God  has  given  me,"  because  what  is  "light"  to 
one  man  may  be  utter  darkness  to  another.  The  Founders  set  up 
in  their  Creed  the  Ijeacou  which  they  intended  should  illumine  the 
path  of  the  Seminary  for  all  coming  time.  And  so  the  question 
continually  recurs,  "  Is.  or  is  not,  the  doctrine  in  question  conform- 
able to  the  Creed?  "  And  that  is  the  sole  test.  I  have  said  that  we 
are  bound  to  show  a  violation  in  some  essenticd  2)articular  in  Older 
to  maintain  the  charge.  We  are  not  here  contending  for  non-esstu- 
tials.  And  it  is  not  claimed  by  the  other  side  that  our  allegations 
come  within  that  category.     I  need  not  occupy  the  time  in  citing 


11 

authorities  to  show  with  what  extreme  solicitude  the  courts  seek  to 
uphold  charitable  trusts,  especially  trusts  for  religious  purposes. 
A  charitable  donation  for  religious  purposes  must  be  applied 
to  sustain  the  purposes  and  doctrines  of  the  donor  as  indicated  by 
him.     The  books  are  full  of  cases  to  this  point. 

There  can  be  no  question  that  the  Andover  Founders  had  the 
right  to  prescribe,  in  the  strongest  terms,  the  conditions  of  this 
trust,  and  that  the  courts  are  bound  to  carry  out  those  conditions 
"  as  indicated  by  the  donors." 

And  it  is  wholly  immaterial  to  the  inquiry  whether,  or  not,  any 
alteration  in  the  terms  of  this  trust  might  not,  under  other  circum- 
stances, be  expedient.  Our  sole  duty  is  to  ascertain  the  intention 
of  the  Founders,  as  declared  by  them  when  they  established  the 
trust,  and  to  faithfully  carry  out  that  intention. 

The  claim  is  set  up,  that  this  was  a  compromise  creed,  and, 
therefore  (this  is  the  logic  of  counsel),  a  contradictory  creed. 

Is  it  conceivable,  Mr.  President,  that  Samuel  Ablx)t,  Phoebe 
Phillips.  John  Phillips,  Moses  Brown,  William  Bartlet  and  John 
Norris,  deliberately  adopted  a  creed,  the  sole  purix)se  of  which 
was  to  secure  sound  religious  instruction  in  that  Seminary  so  long 
as  the  sun  and  moon  should  endure,  knowing  that  it  contained 
doctrinal  statements  so  utterly  repugnant,  one  to  the  other,  that 
no  honest  man  could  subscribe  to  them  without  qualification,  or 
reservation  !  The  idea  is  preposterous  !  As  you  are  aware,  they 
expressly  reserved  to  themselves  the  visitorial  power,  which  you 
now  exercise,  during  their  lives.  Let  us  suppose  that  some  Pro- 
fessor, who  was  being  inducted  into  office  in  their  presence,  after 
repeating  the  prescribed  obligations,  had  added,  '•  but  I  wish  it 
understood  that  I  hold  to  the  doctrine  of  probation  after  death, 
and  claim  the  right  to  inculcate  it.  this  Creed  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding :  "  With  what  consternation,  think  you,  would  such 
a  proposition  have  been  received  by  them  I  Now,  Sir.  I  do  not 
propose  to  enter  upon  the  field  of  theological  discussion  by  so 
much  as  a  single  step.  Had  I  contemplated  doing  so.  T  should 
have  abandoned  the  idea  at  once,  after  listening  to  the  efforts  in 
that  direction  of  some  of  my  legal  friends  on  the  other  side  !  The 
Reverend  and  eminent  gentlemen  who  are  to  follow  me  are  fully 
competent  for  that  work. 

Nor  shall  I  incur  the  risk  of  weakening,  by  dwelling  upon  (for 
no  one  can  add  emphasis  to  it)  that  admirable  and  conclusive  argu- 
ment by  Prof.  Park,  entitled  '-The  Associate  Creed  of  Andover 


12 

Theological  Seminar}',"  upon  which  some  attacks  have  been  made 
by  counsel  for  the  defence. 

I  have  been  taught  to  love  and  revere  that  noble  man  from  my 
childhood.  I  wish  he  were  here  in  person  to  defend  himself, 
which,  notwithstanding  his  years,  he  is  still  abundantly  able  to  do 
against  all  comers.  But  I  put  that  argument  against  all  that  has 
been  urged  here  in  criticism  of  it,  and  confidently  abide  your 
judgment. 

I  desire,  in  conclusion,  briefly  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
decision  in  the  Norris  case,  (12  Mass.  546).  upon  which  so  much 
stress  has  been  laid  by  counsel  for  the  defence,  and  which  they 
have  held  up  to  you  as  if  it  was  conclusive  upon  this  whole  ques- 
tion. They  talked  so  loudly  and  confidently  about  it  that  I  began 
to  think  at  one  time  that  we  should  have  a  motion  to  stop  these 
proceedings  summarily  upon  its  authority  ! 

Let  us  see  what  that  case  is,  and  what  it  decides. 

Mary  Norris,  widow  of  John  Norris,  one  of  the  Associate 
Founders,  by  her  last  will,  executed  Mch.  21,  1811,  gave  a  legacy 
of  thirty  thousand  dollars  to  the  Trustees  of  Phillips  Academy, 
stipulating  that  it  should  enure  particularly  and  exclusively  to  that 
part  of  the  Theological  Institution  called  the  "Associate  Founda- 
tion," so  far  as  it  might  be  consistent  with  the  constitution  of  the 
Associates  of  that  Institution. 

The  payment  of  this  legacy  was  resisted  by  the  executor,  the 
chief  objections  being, 

1.  That  a  corporation  cannot  take  and  hold  property  as  a 
trustee ;  and, 

2.  That  the  Trustees  of  the  Academy  could  not  under  the  Act 
of  June,  1807,  hold  such  a  bequest  unless  it  was  consistent  with 
the  original  design  of  the  Founders  of  the  Academy,  which,  it  was 
claimed,  this  was  not. 

We  are  concerned  only  with  the  latter  objection.  And  the  Court 
held  that  (I  quote  the  head-note  of  the  case)  :  "  A  liberal  con- 
struction will  be  given  liy  the  Court  to  bequests  for  the  support  of 
Christianity;  and  objections  drawn  from  technical  theology  will 
have  little  weight,  when  urged  in  avoidance  of  such  bequests,"  a 
principle  of  law  too  well  established  for  any  one  to  call  in  question. 
The  Court,  having  in  view  the  importance  of  upholding  this  trust, 
decides  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  terms  of  the  bequest  incou- 
sisteut  with  the  original  design  of  the  Founders. 

The  language  used  by  the  learned  judge  who  gave  the  opinion  is 


j»j_jj___gjjggjg^^ 


13 

authority  just  so  far  as  it  was  necessarj'to  the  decision  of  that  case. 
Beyond  that  it  is  obiter  dictum,  and  viewed  in  that  light  the  case  has 
no  bearing  here. 

But  we  are  met  with  still  another  ingenious,  but  equally  untenable, 
proposition.  This  decision  was  rendered  in  1815.  Moses  Brown, 
so  say  the  counsel,  established  the  Brown  Professorship,  which 
Prof.  Smyth  now  fills,  four  years  later,  and  must  have  done  so 
with  full  knowledge  of  that  decision.  And  from  this  3'ou  are 
asked  to  infer  that  he  thereby  signified  his  approval  of  it. 

To  which  we  answer,  that  the  only  question  settled  by  the  Nor- 
ris  case  in  which  he  was  interested  was,  ivhether  the  purpose  which 
he  had  in  view  in  founding  this  Professorship  icoukl  be  upheld  by 
the  Court.  And  that  question  was  satisfactorily  answered  by  this 
case. 

Still  further  the  argument  is  pressed,  that,  because  the  Founders, 
who  survived  several  j-ears  after  Mrs.  Norris's  legacy  had  been 
sustained,  as  we  have  shown,  nevertheless  permitted  to  remain  un- 
changed the  original  provision  in  their  Statutes,  giving  an  appeal 
to  the  Supreme  Court  from  any  decree  of  the  Board  of  Visitors,  the 
inference  is  plain,  that  they  were  willing  to  leave  the  final  decision 
of  all  questions  affecting  this  trust  with  that  Court. 

Now,  in  the  light  of  the  Murdock  case  (7  Pick.  303),  which  came 
before  the  court  in  1820,  where  the  opinion  was  rendered  by  Chief 
Justice  Parker,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  learned  counsel  can  set 
up  such  a  claim.  That  was  a  proceeding,  on  appeal  to  the  Su- 
preme Court  "  from  a  decree  of  the  Board  of  Visitors  of  the  Theo- 
logical Institution  in  Phillips  Academy  in  Audover,  removing  the 
appellant  from  tlie  office  of  Brown  Professor  of  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory in  that  institution." 

And  it  was  expressly  held,  that  the  Court  had  no  power  to  re- 
verse the  decision  of  this  Board  on  matters  of  fact,  for  this  would 
be  to  make  the  Court  the  Visitors  of  the  corporation,  instead  of 
the  Visitors  themselves  appointed  by  the  Founders  ;  but  that  the 
authority  of  the  Court  is  limited  to  the  inquiry  whether  the  Visitors 
have  exceeded  the  limits  of  their  jurisdiction,  or  have  acted  con- 
trary to  the  statutes  of  the  Founders.  For  instance,  if  the  grounds 
alleged  for  removal  are  such  as  tlie  statutes  of  the  Seminary 
prescribe,  the  Court  will  not  examine  into  the  question  whether 
the  Visitors  have  erred  in  their  conclusions  from  the  evidence,  — 
for  that  is  exclusively  within  their  jurisdiction,  — but  only  u-hether 
they  have  observed  the  forms  of  law. 


14 

So  far,  then,  from  the  inference  being  what  it  is  claimed  to  be, 
it  is  perfectly  clear  that  the  Founders,  from  the  very  outset,  never 
intended  to  allow,  even  to  so  exalted  a  tribunal  as  the  Supreme 
Judicial  Court  of  Massachusetts,  the  right  to  revise,  or  set  aside, 
the  decrees  of  this  Honorable  Board  upon  an  issue  like  the  one 
now  pending,  whether  a  Professor  has  forfeited  his  position  by 
reason  of  "holding  and  inculcating"  doctrines  inconsistent  with 
the  Creed. 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Board,  I  have  done.  It 
has  been  my  aim  in  what  has  been  said  by  me  to  consider  the  ques- 
tion in  its  legal  aspects  only,  and  to  answer,  so  far  as  I  was  able, 
with  limited  preparation,  the  objections  raised  by  the  learned  coun- 
sel who  have  conducted  the  defence.  How  far  I  have  succeeded 
in  this  purpose,  you  must  judge.  Fortunately,  before  such  a  tri- 
bunal, any  shortcomings  of  counsel  will  not  be  permitted  to  endan- 
ger his  cause. 

We  are  not  seeking  to  repress  free  thought,  or  free  speech,  but 
to  maintain  Andover  on  the  Rock  ivherethe  Fathers  planted  her. 

The  welfare  of  this  great  institution  is  in  your  keeping.  —  No 
words  of  mine  can  magnify  the  importance  of  the  issue. 

God  give  you  the  strength  and  wisdom  to  discharge  your  solemn 
duty  in  such  a  manner  as  shall  do  impartial  and  exact  justice,  not 
only  to  this  Respondent,  but,  also,  to  that  great  body  of  the  Chris- 
tian public  in  whose  affections  this  Institution  is  enshrined,  and 
whose  prayers  are  with  you  to-day,  and,  finally,  to  the  blessed 
memory  of  the  pious  Founders  of  Andover  Seminary. 


HiiiiiiiHiiiiiKiiiSii^^ 


ARGUMENT  OF   REV.   J.   W.   WELLMAN,   D.D. 


To  the  Reverend  and  Honorable,  the  Board  of  Visitors  in    The 
TJieoIogical  Seminary  at  Andover. 

Gentlemen,  —  It  devolves  upon  me  to  sustain,  by  evidence 
and  argument,  a  part,  and  only  a  part,  of  the  complaints,  which 
a  Committee  of  certain  of  the  Alumni  of  the  Seminary,  with  myself, 
have  felt  constrained  to  bring  before  you.  against  some  of  the 
theological  beliefs  and  teachings  of  Rev.  Egbert  C.  Smyth.  D.D., 
Brown  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  said  Seminary. 

It  seems  important  to  make  a  preliminary  statement  respecting 
the  questions  which  we  are  to  submit  to  your  honorable  Board. 
"We  acknowledge  the  supremacy,  on  the  broad  field  of  religious 
inquiry,  of  the  question  :  What  is  the  revelation  which  God  is 
making  to  man  in  his  "Word,  in  Christ,  in  Christianity,  and  in  his 
works  of  creation  and  providence  ?  "We  believe  in  the  transcend- 
ent importance  of  ascertaining  what  is  true  and  what  is  false  in 
the  wide  domain  of  religious  beliefs.  But  here  nnd  now,  in  the 
case  before  you,  the  primary  and  dominant  question  is  not  whether 
the  theolog}'  at  present  taught  at  Andover.  and  called  the  New 
Theology,  or  Progressive  Orthodoxy,  is  true  or  false.  Nor  is  it 
the  question  whether  this  or  that  Professor  is  a  heretic  as  judged 
by  some  ecclesiastical  standard,  creed  or  law,  or  even  by  the  com- 
mon faith  of  the  Christian  Church.  The  chief  and  vital  question 
is  this  :  "Whether  the  Constitution  and  Statutes  of  Andover  Theo- 
logical Seminary  permit  a  man.  placed  as  Professor  upon  one  of 
its  foundations  and  supported  by  its  funds,  to  believe,  maintain 
and  inculcate  what  is  called  "The  New  Theology"  and  "Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy."  This  is  the  primary  and  dominating  ques- 
tion with  us,  and  the  one  which  we  respectfully  commend  to  your 
serious  consideration. 

In  bringing  this  question  before  you,  however,  we  shall  need 

15 


16 

quite  often  to  raise  two  other  questions  :  First,  wliat  is  the  theology 
which  the  Constitutiou  and  Statutes  of  our  Seminary  require 
should  he  believed  and  taught  by  all  men  occupying  its  Chairs? 
In  other  words,  what  is  the  Andover  Tlieologij  ?  Secondl}',  what 
is  the  Theology  recently,  and  for  the  first  time,  maintained  and 
inculcated  by  Andover  Professors,  and  which  is  affirmed  to  be 
"ne?o"  and  '■'■progressive."  In  other  words,  what  is  the  ''  Xeic 
Theology"  ?  These  two  secondary  questions  must  be  constantly 
before  us  in  our  attempt  to  find  a  true  answer  to  the  main  and 
decisive  question,  which  is  :  Do  the  Constitutiou  and  Statutes  of 
Andover  Seminary  permit  any  man,  while  occupying  an  Andover 
Chair  and  supported  by  Andover  funds,  to  believe,  maintain  and 
inculcate  the  "  New  Theology,"  or  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  ? 

May  I  add  another  word  preliminary  and  personal?  I  am  a 
Trustee  of  Andover  Seminary,  but  I  do  not  come  before  you  as 
a  representati^•e  of  the  Board  of  Trustees.  I  am  not  here  by  an}^ 
vote  or  expressed  wish  of  that  Board,  but  solely  on  my  own  respon- 
sibility. On  the  12th  of  January  last,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Trus- 
tees, after  presenting  a  paper  requesting  that  Board  to  bring  be- 
fore the  Visitors  for  their  investigation  and  decision  the  whole 
question  of  the  fact  and  legality  of  maintaining  a  new  theology  on 
Andover  foundations,  and  after  my  request  had  been  orally  and 
unanimously,  yet  with  all  courtesy,  refused,  I  said  to  the  Trustees 
frankly,  that  I  could  not  rest  with  that  decision,  but  if  any  thing 
could  be  done  by  myself  rightfully  to  save  the  Seminary  to  the 
service  of  the  faith  which  it  was  founded  to  maintain,  I  should 
do  it. 

While,  therefore,  I  am  not  here  as  a  representative  of  the  Board 
of  Trustees,  I  am  here  as  a  Trustee,  with  all  tlie  respousil)ility  of 
a  Trustee,  and  in  honor  bound  to  do  all  I  can  rightfully  do  to  save 
and  hold  the  Seminary  to  the  faith  which  it  was  founded  by  godly 

rand  generous  men  to  maintain  and  proumlgate.  I  stand  before 
you.  Gentlemen,  under  a  profound  conviction,  that  to  introduce 
into  Andover  Seminary  a  "  New  Theology,"  which  is  opposed  to, 
and  supplants,  that  which  the  Seminary  was  established  to  defend 
and  teach,  is  a  gigantic  usurpation  and  wrong,  an  atrocious 
violation  of  the  right  and  liberty  of  Christian  men,  in  this  free 
age  and  this  free  land,  to  use  their  own  wealth  in  founding  institu- 
tions of  sacred  learning  for  the  purpose  of  disseminating  the 
Christian  faith  as  they  understood  it,  and  bringing  a  lost  world  to 
Christ. 


17 

"NVe  come  now  to  the  specific  allegations  which  have  l)een  pre- 
sented against  some  of  the  beliefs  and  teachings  of  Prof.  Egbert 
C.  Smyth,  D.D. 

I.  Our  Jirst  complaint,  under  the  fourth  general  division  of 
charges,  is  this:  that  Prof.  Sm>/th  ''holds,  maintains  and  incul- 
cates, that  the  Bible  is  not  the  outi/  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice, but  is  fallible  and  untrustworthy  even  in  some  of  its  religious 
teachings." 

In  subscribing  to  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary,  everj'  Professor 
makes  this  declaration,  "  I  believe  .  .  .  that  the  Word  of  God, 
contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  is  the 
only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice." 

For  the  understanding  of  this  Creed-statement  as  the  Founders 
of  the  Seminary  understood  it,  a  few  things  need  to  be  said. 

1.  To  the  phrase,  "  the  AVord  of  God  contained  in  the  Scrip- 
tures," they  attached  a  definite  meaning.  That  meaning  is  not 
doubtful.  They  took  the  pfiraso  from  the  Shorter  Catechism  and 
attached  to  it  the  same  meaning  which  was  given  to  it  by  tlie 
Westminster  Assembly.  That  Assembly  in  its  Conf.  of  Faith 
affirms,  that  "Under  the  name  of  Holy  Scripture,  or  the  AVord 
of  God  written,  are  now  contained  all  the  books  of  the  Old  an  1 
New  Testament."  [Chap.  I.  Article  2.]  Then,  in  their  meanin<j;. 
''all  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament"  are  "the  Word 
of  God  written,"  or  "the  Holy  Scripture."  Their  statement 
does  not  allow  the  belief  that  the  Scriptures  '■''contain,"  but  are 
7iot  themselves,  "the  Word  of  God."  They  declare  that  the 
phrases,  "  Holy  Scripture  "  and  "  the  Word  of  God  written  "  are 
synonymous  ;  for  they  say.  "  Holy  Scripture,  or  the  Word  of  Goil 
written,"  and  tiiey  affirm,  that  under  either  of  these  names  "are 
now  contained  cdl  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament." 
In  their  view,  then,  the  Bible  in  its  entirety  was  "the  Word 
of  God,"  and  this  is  what  they  meant  by  the  phrase,  "  Word  of 
God,"  when  they  wrote  the  Shorter  Catechism. 

The  writers  of  the  Andover  Creed,  tlierefore,  taking  the  phrase, 
"the  Word  of  God,"  from  the  Westminster  Divines,  and  using  it 
in  the  same  sense  in  which  theij  used  it,  meant  by  it  the  Bible,  the 
entire  Holy  Scripture  —  comprising  all  the  books  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments.  The  Founders  of  the  Seminary,  then,  could 
not  have  meant  to  affirm  or  imply,  that  the  Word  of  God  is  found 
only  here  and  there  in  the  Bible,  scattered  like  kernels  of  wheat  in 
a  heap  of   chaff,  and  that  it  is  to  be    discovered   only   by  some 


18 

ingenious  sifting  or  winnowing  process.  They  use  the  phraseology, 
"the  Word  of  God  contained  in  the  Scriptures,"  as  equivalent 
to,  "  the  Word  of  God  comprising,  or  constituting,  the  Scriptures." 
What  they  affirm  in  their  Creed  is,  that  the  Bible.  —  not  some 
selected  books,  portions,  or  passages  of  it  —  but  the  Bible  "is  the 
only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice."  The  doctrine  of  the  Creed 
therefore  can  properl}'  be  subscribed  to,  only  as  it  is  interpreted 
to  mean  what  the  Founders  meant  by  it,  namely,  that  the  Bible  as 
a  idiole,  and  not  in  some  parts  merely',  is  "the  Word  of  God" 
and  is  "the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice." 

2.  The  belief  of  the  Founders  in  respect  to  the  origin  and 
authority  of  the  Bible  was  moulded,  as  was  that  of  all  Calviuists, 
by  the  apostolic  testimony,  that  "  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspira- 
tion of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correc- 
tion, for  instruction  in  righteousness."  They  called  the  Scriptures 
the  Word  of  God.  Then  they  must  have  believed  that,  in  soine 
intelligible  and  real  sense,  they  were  uttered  of  God,  though  icritten 
by  men.  That  is,  they  believed  in  the  divine  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  intended  that  the  doctrine  of  their  inspiration 
should  be  taught  in  the  Seminary  so  long  as  it  should  exist.  It 
has  been  said,  that  the  Creed  "affirms  no  definite  theory  of  inspi- 
ration." But  it  does  affirm  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  "  Word  of 
God.,'^  and  therefore  must  have  had  some  utterance  from  Him. 
The  statement  of  the  Creed  excludes  the  idea  that  they  were  merely 
human  writings  inspired  only  by  human  thoughts  and  feelings, 
human  experiences  and  life.  The  Founders  believed  the  apostolic 
testimony,  that  "Holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by 
the  Holy  Ghost;"  that  some  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
wrought  upon  and  guided  divinely  appointed  men  in  the  work  of 
communicating  God's  will  and  truth  to  the  world,  and  that  this 
divine  influence  was  bestowed,  whether  that  communication  were  to 
l)e  made  on  the  part  of  inspired  men  orally  or  by  irritinrj,  and  that 
this  special  influence  or  inspiration  was  such  as  the  Holy  Spirit 
vouchsafed  to  no  other  men.  They  did  believe  that  the  Holy 
Scriptures  were  the  Word  of  God,  and  not  merely  the  Word  of 
man  ;  that  they  were  the  Word  of  God  ivritten  by  men  especially 
appointed  and  moved  to  the  writing,  and  guided  therein,  by  the 
Holy  Ghost.  In  view  of  all  this,  we  affirm  that  no  man  can  con- 
sistently or  rightfully  subscribe  to  the  Andover  Creed  and  then 
believe  and  maintain  that  the  Scriptures  were  not  inspired  by  an}' 
special    and    immediate    influence    of   the    Holy   Spirit,  but    were 


19 

inspired  only  liy  the  religious  feelings  and  experiences,  the  inner 
light  and  life  of  good  men,  or  were  merely  the  natural  outcome  of 
facts  or  forces  in  human  history. 

The  Founders  of  the  Seminary,  of  course,  knew  that  certain 
minor  changes,  marvellously  few,  had  crept  into  the  text  of  the 
Bible,  through  transcription,  translation,  marginal  notes,  and  the 
like.  But  when  they  spoke  of  the  Scriptures  as  "the  Word  of 
God  u'i'itten.'"  they  meant  icritten  hy  inspired  men.  "The  "Word 
of  God  written  "  was  to  them  His  "Word  as  it  came  from  the  hands 
of  the  men  whom  the  Holy  Ghost  had  moved  to  write  it.  That 
Word  of  God  they  believed  to  be  perfect  as  "  a  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,"  infallible  in  its  moral  and  religious  teachings,  and  the 
only  perfect  standard  and  infallible  guide  man  has,  by  which  to 
order  his  moral  conduct  and  religious  beliefs.  The  Founders  were 
Calvinists  and  "consistent  Calvinists,"  and  one  of  their  most 
sacred  and  tenderly  guarded  faiths  was  that  the  Word  of  God,  the 
Bible,  is  entirely  trustworthy  in  all  the  instructions  and  revelations 
which  it  was  designed,  of  its  infinite  Author,  to  give  to  men. 

What  now  are  the  teachings  and  belief  of  the  Respondent 
respecting  the  trustworthiness  of  the  Bible,  as  they  are  presented, 
not  in  occasional  and  brief  utterances,  but  in  carefully  prepared 
and  protracted  discussions? 

In  his  official  response  _  to  recent  communications  from  your 
Board,  and  repeatedly  on  puVilic  occasions,  he  has  denied  our  alle- 
gation.    It  devolves  upon  us  to  sustain  our  charge. 

In  the  Andover  Review,  April,  1886,  one  of  the  editors  of  which 
is  Professor  Egbert  C.  Smyth,  is  an  editorial  Article,  entitled ; 
••  The  Bible  a  TJieme  for  the  Pulpit:'  [pp.  40G-409.]  The 
entire  Article  is  commended  to  the  careful  examination  of  your 
Honorable  Board.  Special  attention  is  called  to  the  following 
extracts. 

The  conception  of  the  Scriptures  associated  witli  modern  Biblical  culture 
suggests  a  new  task  for  the  pulpit,  and  in  making  this  suggestion  presents  a 
practical  problem  to  the  preacher. 

On  the  one  hand,  the  stimulus  and  comfort  which  he  receives  from  his  new- 
notion  of  the  Bible  make  him  eager  to  see  it  taking  possession  of  the  mind 
of  his  people.  .  .  . 

On  the  other  hand,  the  minister  knows  that  Ids  conception  of  the  Bible 
differs  considerabh"  from  that  which  holds  some,  perhaps  many,  of  his  people, 
and  those  by  no  means  the  least  vigorous  or  earnest  among  them.  And  he 
apprehends  that  the  divergence  of  his  view  from  theirs,  if  clearly  seen  by 
them,  would  seem  greater  and  more  serious  to  them  than  it  does  to  him. 


20 

The  idea  of  divine  revelation  is  in  their  minds  so  firmly  associated  with  that 
of  immediate  divine  utterance,  perfect  both  in  content  and  in  form,  that  any 
attempt  to  show  that  the  Bible  is  not  a  book  of  oracles  would,  he  thinks,  be 
likely  to  wound  religious  feeling. 

Therefore,  he  asks  himself  whether  it  be  worth  while  to  risk  the  loss  of 
influence  with  some,  perhaps  among  the  most  valuable  members  of  his  con- 
gregation, which  would  be  likely  to  result  from  an  attempt  to  teach  a  way  of 
looking  at  Scripture  which  would  seem  to  them  prejudicial  to  its  sacredness 
and  authority.  .  .  . 

It  is  not,  we  trust,  disrespectful  to  suggest  that  the  considerations  in  favor 
of  the  prudential  course  are  newer  than  those  which  support  its  opposite,  and 
therefore  likely  to  assume  excessive  prominence,  and  that  they  are  supported 
by  motives  which  might  exaggerate  their  importance  to  any  but  the  most  dis- 
interested among  mankind,     [pp.  400-7.] 

It  is  due,  we  may  say  in  passing,  in  no  small  degree  to  the  exclusion  of  this 
topic  from  recent  preaching,  that  our  churches  have  almost  without  exception 
in  their  Sunday  school  work  fallen  under  the  rigid  dominion  of  a  conception  of 
Scripture  and  method  of  handling  it  with  which  the  more  intelligent  minis- 
ters have  only  partial  sympathy,  and  from  whose  grasp  many  of  them  would 
gladly  escape.  The  considerations  against  discussing  the  Bible  in  the  pulpit 
must  be  weighty  to  offset  these  reasons  for  frank  and  open  speech.  .  .  .  There 
may,  indeed,  well  be  a  time  of  reflection  and  sifting,  a  time  of  reticence  be- 
cause of  partial  or  immature  conviction.  But  when  conviction  is  formed,  it 
should  be  expressed,  though  not,  of  course,  in  a  challenging  and  combative 
manner.  A  minister  who  should  begin  to  preach  a  series  of  sermons  about 
the  Bible,  by  saying  that  he  expected  to  show  that  the  notion  of  inspiration 
in  which  his  hearers  had  been  trained  was  air  erroneous  one,  would  proba- 
bly find  a  considerable  part  of  his  congregation  resolutely  opposed  to  his 
teaching  from  the  outset.  .  .  .  But  let  the  discussion  be  announced  to  be, 
what  it  really  is,  an  examination  of  facts;  let  it  be  proposed  to  enter  into  an 
historical  inquiry  as  to  the  genesis  of  the  Scriptures,  and  to  examine  their 
relation  to  the  divine  revelation  in  the  light  of  their  origin,  and  assent  is  not 
likely  to  be  withheld  from  a  proposition  so  reasonable  and  so  promising  of 
definite  result.  Then,  as  inspired  life  is  shown  expressing  itself  in  inspired 
teaching, — as  for  example,  the  connection  between  Paul's  written  teach- 
ing and  his  own  inner  life  and  his  apostolic  work  is  traced,  or  the  apostolic 
tradition  is  shown  embodying  itself  in  the  synoptic  Gospels,  —the  conviction 
will  gradually  be  created  that  the  Scripture  is  the  vehicle  by  which  the  divine 
revelation  is  conveyed  to  man,  and  in  no  true  sense  the  revelation  itself. 
This  conviction  formed,  it  will  be  easy  to  show  that  the  perfection  of  the 
vehicle  is  by  no  means  implied  in  the  preciousness  of  its  contents,  and  that 
Christian  faith  is  not  necessarily  committed  to  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible, 
[pp.  408-9.] 

Several  things  in  this  remarkable  editorial  should  be  especially 
noticed. 

1.  The  Editor,  while  writing  this  article  for  the  benefit  of  a  class 
of  ministers  alleged  to  hold  a  certain  extraordinary  view  of  the 
Bible,  represents  himself  as  in  profound  sympathy  with  them  and 


nmTTrmTiiWf  I  1 1      illllllllliMiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiT 


21 

with  their  view.  More  than  this,  from  the  purpose  and  tone  of  the 
tutorial  it  is  plain  that  the  writer  himself  heartily  accepts  the 
•*new  notion  of  the  Bible."  ''the  conception  of  the  Scriptures 
associated  with  modern  Biblical  culture,"  held  by  those  ministers. 
A  neic  idea  it  is  of  the  Word  of  God ;  and  one,  therefore,  not  rec- 
ognized by  any  of  our  church  creeds,  nor  by  the  Andover  Creed, 
nor  by  any  creed  found  in  the  great  history  of  Christianity,  — 
a  new  idea  of  the  Word  of  God,  for  the  dawning  of  which  the 
Christian  Church  has  been  waiting  for  nearly  nineteen  centuries. 

2.  Secondly,  the  writer  fully  accords  with  these  ministers  in 
their  high  estimate  of  the  value  of  this  ••  new  notion  of  the  Bible." 
He  gladly  represents  that  it  has  been  ••  a  stimuhis  and  comfort" 
to  them,  and  helpful  in  many  particulars,  especially  in  freeing 
them  from  "•  painful  questions  "  respecting  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures.  Evidently  the  new  view  of  Scripture  has  been  equally 
helpful  to  himself. 

3.  Thirdly,  the  Editor  is  in  painful  sympathy  with  these  minis- 
ters in  their  dread  apprehension,  that  the  new  view  of  Scripture 
accepted  by  them,  if  known  to  their  people,  especially  if  an- 
nounced to  them  too  abruptly  or  inconsiderately,  would  be  ex- 
tremely offensive  to  them,  would  wound  religious  feeling,  and 
would  disturb,  perhaps  terminate,  pastoral  relations  with  some  of 
the  most  vigorous  and  earnest,  most  valuable  and  influential 
members  of  their  congregations. 

4.  Yet  fourthly,  so  in  earnest  is  the  Professor  to  have  this 
"  new  notion  of  the  Bible  "  promulgated,  that  he  urges  these  min- 
isters to  have  the  courage  of  their  convictions,  to  scrutinize  the 
motives  that  plead  for  continued  silence  and  not  yield  to  them 
too  readily,  to  deliberate,  if  need  be,  until  the  new  idea  of  the 
"Word  of  God  is  fully  matured,  but  then  to  show  their  mettle,  and 
not  play  the  coward.  He  even  goes  so  far  as  to  suggest  consider- 
ate and  judicious  methods  of  procedure,  which  may  be  adopted  by 
them  when  they  shall  take  up  the  extremely  difficult  task  of 
preaching  a  view  of  the  Bible  so  startling  to  the  people,  and  so 
hazardous  to  pastoral  interests  and  relations,  as  this  is  known 
to  be. 

Now  what  is  this  "new  notion  of  the  Bible,"  so  repulsive  to 
our  churches,  yet  so  warmly  advocated  by  the  Respondent,  and 
which  he  would  have  ministers  preach  even  at  the  risk  of  jeopard- 
izing, if  not  terminating,  pastoral  relations  ?  No  elaborate  state- 
ment of  it  is  found  in  this  editorial.     The  writer  puts  in  practice 


22 

the  prudential  counsel  which  he  gives  to  timid  ministers.  He 
makes  a  cautious  beginning,  yet  gives  us  a  clear  glimpse  of  his 
new  conception.  The  conception  is  this  :  '"That  the  Scripture  is 
the  vehicle  by  ichich  the  divine  revelation  is  conveyed  to  man,  and  in 
no  true  sense  the  revelation  itself,"  '-that  the  perfection  of  the 
vehicle  is  by  no  means  implied  in  the  preciousness  of  its  contents ; 
and  that  Christian  faith  is  not  yiecessarily  committed  to  the  infallibil- 
ity of  the  Bible."  Now  if  this  be  a  prudent,  cautious  and  merely 
tentative  statement  of  the  '•  neiv  -notion."  we  cannot  help  asking, 
what  would  a  bold,  frank  and  full  statement  of  it  be? 

But,  taking  the  description  given  us.  what  is  this  vehicle,  the  per- 
fection of  which  is  not  implied  by  any  value  which  may  attach  to 
the  divine  revelation  which  it  conveys?  This  vehicle  is  the  Bible 
itself,  the  Holy  Scri2)tu7'es,  the  very  Word  of  God,  which  the 
Andover  Creed  declares  to  be  '•'■the  only  jjerfect  ride  of  faith  and 
piractice."  What  is  that  something,  to  the  infallibility  of  which 
Christian  faith  is  not  necessarily  committed?  It  is  the  same 
Bible,  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  Word  of  God,  declared  in  the 
Creed  to  be  '-the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice."  But 
the  statement  of  the  Creed  does  not  allow  the  illustration  of  a 
vehicle  and  its  contents.  The  Scriptures  a  vehicle  I  Can  a  vehicle 
be  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice?  According  to  the  Creed,  the 
Word  of  God  vrritten  is  not  an  imperfect  and  dilapidated  carriage, 
the  unwritten  contents  of  which  are  the  perfect  rule.  But  the 
icritten  Word  of  God  itself  is  the  perfect  rule.  Nor  can  any  dis- 
tinction which  the  Professor  may  make  between  "  the  Holy 
Scriptures  "  and  "  the  divine  revelation,"  be  any  defence  for  his 
believing  and  teaching,  while  occupying  an  Andover  chair,  that 
the  Holy  Scriptures  are  fallible,  but  the  revelation  made  in  them  in- 
fallible.  An  organic  law  of  the  Seminary  requires  that  every  Pro- 
fessor on  its  foundations  shall  believe  and  teach.  —  not  that  some 
unwritten  revelation,  which  can  be  conceived  of  as  distinct  from 
the  Scriptures  and  can  be  separated  from  them,  is  the  "perfect 
rule,"  —  but  that  the  Scriptures  themselves  are  "  the  perfect  rule." 

Can  one  believe  that  the  Bible  is  fallible,  and  at  the  same  time 
believe  that  it  is  an  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice?  An 
Andover  Professor  can  do  many  things,  but  he  cannot  do  that.  A 
fallible  Bible  is  a  fallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  therefore 
untrustworthy  in  its  moral  and  religious  teachings. 

The  writer  of  the  editorial  before  us  teaches.  —  and  he  would 
have  all  ministers  teach,  — that  *•  Christian  faith  is  not  necessarily 


23 

committed  to  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible."  Then,  in  his  view, 
the  Bible  may  be  fallible.  But  if  it  is  fallible,  it  is  fallible  as  a 
'•rule  of  faith  and  practice,"  and  as  a  fallible  rule,  is  not  trust- 
worthy in  its  revelations  and  teachings.  The  Professor  has  thus 
brought  himself  into  open  antagonism  to  the  Seminary  Creed,  in 
subscribing  to  which  he  declared  it  to  be  his  positive  belief,  that 
the  Bible  is  not  a  fallible,  but  a,  perfect,  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

Moreover,  in  assenting  to  the  Creed,  the  Professor  announces 
himself  as  the  friend  and  advocate  of  the  old  doctrine  of  the 
Catechism  concerning  the  Scriptures  ;  but  in  his  editorial  he  an- 
nounces himself  as  the  friend  and  advocate  of  "  a  new  notion  of 
the  Bible."  In  the  latter  advocacy  he  claims  to  be  progressive, 
and  to  be  helping  forward  a  new  and  grand  theological  movement. 
But  is  this  theological  movement,  to  which  he  has  so  zealously 
committed  himself,  and  is  attempting  to  commit  the  Seminary,  in 
harmony  with  the  Andover  Creed,  or  in  conflict  with  it? 

Let  us  see.  The  old  do(?trine  is,  that  the  Bible  is  a  perfect  rule 
of  faith  and  practice;  the  "new  notion"  is,  that  the  Bible  is  an 
mperfect  vehicle  of  truth.  The  old  doctrine  is,  that  the  Scriptures 
are  infallible  as  a  rule  of  religious  belief  and  moral  life ;  the  "■  new 
notion"  is,  that  ''Christian  faith  is  not  necessarily  committed  to 
the  infallibility  of  the  Bible."  The  grand  old  doctrine  of  the 
Catechism  and  of  the  Creed  is,  that  ''  the  Word  of  God  written  " 
is  itself  infallible  and  perfectly  trustworthy  in  its  moral  and  religious 
teachings.  •'  The  new  notion  "  of  Progressive  Orthodoxy  is,  that 
the  "  AVord  of  God  written"  is  fallible  and  untrustworthy  in  its 
moral  and  religious  instruction. 

"We  have  two  more  complaints  to  bring  against  this  editorial, 
entitled,  ••  The  Bible  a  Tlieme  for  the  Pulpit." 

1.  The  whole  drift  or  tone  of  the  Article  puts  suspicion  upon 
the  Bible.  The  Article  insinuates,  no  one  knows  how  much  fal- 
libility. A  ""new  notion  of  the  Bible"  in  this  nineteenth  century 
of  the  Christian  Era  is  advocated,  but  what  is  ''  the  new  notion  "  ? 
The  Scriptures  are  only  "  a  vehicle  "  of  truth,  and  not  surely  perfect 
at  that :  but  how  dilapidated  are  they  ?  How  much  revelation  has 
dropped  out  of  them,  and  been  lost?  ''  Christian  faith  is  not  neces- 
sarily committed  to  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible."  But  how  falli- 
ble is  the  Bible?  AVhat  jtortion  of  its  promises  and  revelations 
can  be  trusted  ?  What  ?'5  Christian  faith  committed  to  in  respect 
to  the  Bible?  For  aught  that  is  said  in  this  Article,  ninetj'-nine 
one-huudredths  of  the  Bible  may  be  false  and  deceptive.     And  all 


24 

this  needless  suspicion  against  the  Scriptures  is  sent  forth  from 
Andover  Seminary,  the  faith  of  every  one  of  whose  Professors  is 
necessarily,  or  by  the  organic  laws  of  the  Seminary,  committed  to 
the  infallibility  of  the  Bible  as  "  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice." 

2.  This  Editorial  Article  shows,  that  Progressive  Orthodoxy 
intends  to  crowd  upon  the  churches,  through  recent  graduates  of 
the  Seminary  in  their  pulpits,  neiv  notions  of  the  Bible,  —  notions 
which,  it  is  confessed,  will  be  extremely  odious  to  many  Cliris- 
tians,  and  are  fitted  to  create  divisions  and  animosities  in  Christian 
brotherhoods,  and  to  jeopardize  pastoral  relations.  We  complain 
of  such  action  and  influence  as  an  open  violation  of  that  solemn 
promise  made  by  every  Professor,  when  he  says,  in  taking  the 
Creed  :  "  I  will  consult  the  good  of  this  Institution,  and  the  peace 
of  the  Churches  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  on  all  occasions." 

Again,  in  the  book  entitled  Progressive  Orthodoxy,  comprising 
several  editorials  taken  from  the  Andover  Revieic,  for  which  edi- 
torial and  book,  Professor  Smyth,  as  one  of  the  editors  and  authors, 
is  responsible,  we  find  [p.  231]  the  following  paragraph. 

If  Christ  is  the  supreme  and  final  revelation  He  is  the  test  of  all  preceding 
revelation.  If  we  accept  Him  as  God's  supreme  and  final  revelation,  we  must 
brins  preceding  revelation  to  this  test.  We  cannot  escape  the  comparison  if 
we  would.  He  brings  us  his  own  conception  of  God,  of  life,  of  duty.  It 
claims  to  cover  the  whole  horizon  of  truth,  and  demands  possession  of  everj- 
spiritual  and  rational  faculty.  If  we  will  have  it  as  ours  we  must  hold  it 
separate  from  and  above  every  other.  Whatever  else  comes  to  us  as  from 
God  must  present  its  credentials  to  Christ's  truth  in  our  mind  and  hearts. 
This  is  not  only  the  teaching  of  Christian  faith;  it  is  the  teaching  of  Christ. 
When  He  told  us  that  certain  precepts  of  the  law  were  to  be  replaced  by 
spiritual  maxims  more  in  harmony  with  the  nature  of  God,  He  taugbt  us  to 
apply  Christian  principles  to  all  the  law  and  prophets,  and  to  regard  all  in 
them  which  is  not  consistent  with  those  principles  as  superseded  by  the  new 
revelation. 

Now  how  does  this  extract  sustain  our  allegation  ? 

1 .  First,  in  these  statements  the  Respondent  represents  it  as  his 
belief,  that  Christ  himself,  in  his  own  personality,  is  the  supreme 
and  final  revelation,  and  as  such  is  the  test  of  all  preceding  revela- 
tion, and  not  only  of  that,  but  of  all  revelations  ;  for  he  adds,  that 
if  we  would  have  Christ's  conception  of  God,  of  life,  of  duty  ours, 
"we  must  hold  it  separate  from  and  above  every  other."  No  other 
revelation  of  God.  then,  though  made  by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God 
himself,  who  is  called  "  the  Spirit  of  truth,"  can  be  held  by  us  as 
even  co-ordinate  in  authority  with  the  revelation  made  in  the  person 


25 

of  Christ.  Surely  such  depreciation  as  this  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  Gocl 
does  not  prepare  the  way  for  the  belief  that  the  Scriptures  inspired 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  "the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice." 

2.  But,  secondly,  the  J^ditor  also  affirms,  that  "  Whatever  else 
comes  to  us  as  from  God  must  present  its  credentials  to  Christ's 
truth."  If  that  be  so,  a  question  of  supreme  practical  concern  to 
us,  and  to  Andover  Seminary,  presents  itself  at  once ;  Where  is 
"  Christ's  truth  "  to  be  found?  Wliere^  in  the  judgment  of  Progres- 
sive Orthodoxij,  shall  we  look  for  it?  In  the  gospel  of  Christ  as 
given  us  by  the  inspired  Evangelists?  Not  at  all.  In  any  Word 
of  God  coming  to  us  through  man  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghust  to 
speak  and  write?  By  no  means.  Where  then  is  Christ's  truth  to 
be  found  :  that  truth  to  which  all  other  revelations  coming  to  us  as 
from  God  must  bring  their  credentials?  Christ's  truth,  that  im- 
perial and  supreme  truth  which  is  to  be  the  final  test  of  all  other 
revelations,  is  to  be  found  "■  »i  our  mind  and  hearts.'^  So  says 
Progressive  Orthodoxy. 

But  even  then,  who  is  to  decide  what  "  Christ's  truth  in  our  mind 
and  hearts"  is?  And  who  is  to  put  it  into  statement?  We  our- 
selves, of  course.  No  finite  being  can  enter  into  our  souls  to  deter- 
mine what  truths  are  there,  or  to  formulate  them.  Moreover,  who 
is  to  compare  other  alleged  revelations  from  God  icith  Christ's 
truth  in  our  mind  and  hearts?  Who  is  to  examine  tlieir  credentials, 
who  conduct  the  judicial  trial,  and  who  pronounce  the  final  sen- 
tence? Certainly  we  ourselves.  No  other  human  being  can  enter 
this  imperial  court  of  '"our  mind  and  hearts,"  and  sit  upon  its 
judgment  seat.  I  submit.  Gentlemen  of  the  Board,  that  this  new 
method  of  judging  Scripture  and  attaining  divine  truth,  is  simply 
the  old  and  erroneous  notion  of  "the  inner  light"  held  b}-  the 
Friends,  which  is  that  "  a  portion  of  the  same  Spirit  which  Jesus 
and  the  Prophets  and  the  apostles  had,"  or  a  certain  inner  light  or 
life,  is  given  to  «s  as  "a  primary  and  infallible  guide.  Hence  the 
Scriptures  are  a  subordinate  and  secondarj'  guide."  [Portraiture 
of  Quakerism,  by  Clarkson,  vol.  2,  p.  13U.]  According  to  this 
view  the  Scriptures  themselves  and  their  divine  authority  are  to 
be  tested  by  every  one's  own  spiritual  endowment  and  perception. 
[Ibid.,  p.  113.]  ' 

Progressive  Orthodoxy  sometimes  designates  this  inner  and  final 
test  of  Scripture  l)y  the  more  modern  names  of  "  Christian  con- 
sciousness," "refined  Christian  sentiment,"  and  "Christian  cul- 
ture." 


26 

3.  The  representation  is  made  in  this  passage  that  Christ  cor- 
rected the  ancient  Scriptures,  replacing  certain  precepts  of  the 
law  by  "maxims  more  in  harmony  with  the  nature  of  God." 
Also  on  p.  218,  the  writer  speaks  of  "  teachings  "  of  Christ,  "  in 
which  He  criticises  and  amends  certain  statements  of  the  Old 
Testament  as  to  men's  moral  obligation."  But  if  the  moral 
teachings  of  the  Old  Testament  were  so  incorrect  in  Christ's  time 
that  they  needed  to  be  amended,  one  thing  is  certain,  and  that  is, 
that  those  ancient  Scriptures  were  not  then,  and  are  not  noio,  "a 
perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice;  "  and  no  man  can  believe  that 
Christ  thus  amended  and  superseded  them,  and  at  the  same  time 
believe  that  they  are  "  a  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice." 

Moreover,  we  are  told,  in  one  of  those  passages  just  cited,  that 
Christ  teaches  us  to  amend  and  supplant  the  law  and  the  prophets, 
so  far  as  we  find  that,  in  our  judgment,  they  are  contrary  to  Chris- 
tian principles.  But  if  Christ  did  this,  then,  not  only  are  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures  untrustworthy  in  their  moral  and  reli- 
gious teachings,  but  any  man,  deeming  himself  a  judge  of  Chris- 
tian principles,  may  change  the  Word  of  God,  and  supersede  its 
commands,  promises  and  revelations,  by  his  own  wisdom,  ad 
libitum. 

The  relation  of  that  view  to  the  intentions  of  the  Founders, 
as  expressed  in  their  Creed,  is  unmistakable.  It  is  intensely  antag- 
onistic to  the  Andover  Symbol.  Few  forms  of  unbelief  in  respect 
to  the  Scriptures  could  be  more  so.  If  the  method  adopted  by 
Progressive  Orthodoxy  of  testing  the  truth  and  authority  of  all 
alleged  revelations  from  God,  be  the  true  one,  then  the  Holy 
Scriptures  are  not '•  the  o?tZy  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice." 
There  is  another  rule,  not  simply  co-ordinate  with,  but  superior 
to,  that  of  the  Scriptures.  That  superior  rule  is  irithin  ourselves, 
"Christ's  own  truth  in  our  mind  and  hearts,"  that  is,  our  own 
"Christian  consciousness,"  our  own  '"refined  Christian  sentiment," 
our  own  "  Christian  culture."  To  the  supremacy  of  this  rule  within 
us,  the  "Word  of  God  written,"  all  revehitions  coming  to  us  as  from 
God  in  the  Old  or  New  Testament,  must  bow  down,  present  their 
credentials  and  receive  judgment.  AVe  ourselves  are  to  amend  or 
supersede  any  Scripture  according  to  our  own  judgment,  so  far  as 
we  deem  our  own  judgment  Christian,  refined,  or  cultured.  In 
other  words,  every  man  is  to  make  his  own  Bible. 

Now  we  affirm  that  the  Professor  by  maintaining  and  incul- 
cating these  views,  violates  the  Constitution  and  Statutes  of  the 


HiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiilliHm 


27 

Seminary,  defeats  so  far  the  purix)se  of  its  Founders,  and  breaks 
his  own  solemn  promises  made  when  he  subscribed  to  the  Creed 
His  offence  is  also  greatly  aggravated  by  the  further  representa- 
tion made  in  this  same  extract,  that  Christ  himself  teaches,  that 
K-e  may  follow  his  example,  and  even  take  his  place,  in  testing 
and  winnowing  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  that  we  ourselves  by  apply 
ing  Christian  principles  may  judge  the  law  and  prophets,  and  may 
'•regard  all  in  them  which  is  not  consistent  with  those  principles 
as  superseded    by  the   new  revelation  "     How  is  it   possible  for 
one,  who  thus  subordinates  the  truth  and  authority  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  to  the  truth   and   authority  of   his  own   judgment,  to 
believe  that  those  same  dishonored  Scriptures  are  '■  the  only  per 
feet  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ' '  ? 

Let  it  be  understood,  however,  that  whenever  we  speak,  as  we 
just  have  spoken,  of  a  promise  not  kept  or  broken,  we  make  no 
charge  of  conscious  moral  dereliction.  We  have  no  right  to 
judge  motives.  "What  we  say  is.  that  such  was  the  promise  of  the 
Professor,  and  that  such  was  his  action  in  relation  to  that  promise, 
and  that,  in  our  judgment,  the  action  was  a  violation  of  the  prom 
ise  :  but  we  do  not  charge  that  the  Professor  in  his  own  view  vio 
lated  his  promise. 

Another  statement  of  Progressice  Orthodo.v>j  respecting  Holy 
Scriptures  and  our  Lord's  relation  to  them,  is  as  follows. 

[Prog.  Orth    227-8]  :  — 

Even  if  one  is  convinced  that  our  Lord  accepted  the  traditional  view  of 
the  authorship  of  the  books  in  question  [the  Pentateuch]  he  cannot  hold 
that  His  authority  is  committed  to  that  view  until  he  lias  satisfied  himself 
that  Christ  claimed  to  V)e  omniscient  during  the  days  of  his  humiliation,  -  a 
belief  irreconcilable  with  his  own  declaration  that  He  knew  neither  the  day 
nor  the  hour  of  his  second  coming. 

The  reasoning  in  this  statement  is  abstruse,  but  one  thing  is 
made  plain,  and  that  is.  that  our  Lord  in  the  days  of  his  humilia- 
tion did  not.  in  the  writer's  view,  claim  to  be  omniscient.  Then, 
in  the  writer's  view,  He  was  not  omniscient.  Would  any  intelli- 
gent man.  who  believed  that  Christ,  in  his  earthly  life,  v:as  oinni- 
scient,  magnify  in  this  way  the  difficulty  of  satisfying  one's  self  that 
Christ  claimed  to  be  omniscient?     It  is  pertinent,  then,  to  ask  : 

First,  how  can  the  writer  consistently  represent  on  one  page, 
that  Christ  was  the  supreme  and  final  revelation,  and  on  another 
page,  near  by,  that  He  was  so  limited  in  his  knowledge  that  He 
did  not  know,  and  could  not  know,  who  wrote  the  Pentateuch  ? 


28 

Secondly,  how  can  the  author  reconcile  his  declaration,  that 
Christ's  "  conception,"  or  knowledge,  claims  to  cover  '•  the  whole 
horizon  of  truth  '*  [p.  231]  with  his  other  virtual  dechuation,  that 
Christ  did  not  claim  to  l)e  omniscient? 

Thirdly,  if  Christ  in  His  earthly  life,  was  a  being  of  such  limited 
knowledge,  what  certainty  have  we,  that  the  revelations,  and 
promises  of  His  gospel  made  in  His  own  name  and  by  His  own 
authority,  are  trustworthy,  or  that  all  our  hopes  for  eternity,  built 
upon  His  word,  are  not  false  and  delusive? 

Fourthly,  if  Christ  was  so  ignorant  in  the  days  of  His  humilia- 
tion, that  He  had  no  exhaustive  knowledge  of  the  origin  and  author- 
ship of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  what  confidence  can  we 
have,  that  the  teachings  of  those  whom  He  instructed,  or  the 
preaching  and  writings  of  the  Apostles,  were,  in  all  respects,  true 
and  of  divine  authority? 

And  fifthly,  if  the  writer  believes,  as  he  evidently  does,  that 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  a  being  of  limited  knowledge  when  He 
gave  His  gospel  to  the  world,  and  when  He  instructed  His  Apostles 
who  were  to  write  so  large  a  portion  of  the  Bible,  how  can  it  be 
believed  by  him  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament, 
are  ''  a  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice  "  ? 

Your  attention  is  called  to  further  statements  of  Progressive 
Orthodoxy. 

[Prog.  Orth.  p.  208]  • — 

We  can  hardly  believe,  indeed,  that  the  truth  as  revealed  throtigh  the 
apostles  had  such  absolute  purity  as  we  must  suppose  it  to  have  had  if 
perfect  beings  had  been  the  media  of  revelation. 

In  these  words  the  Professor  confesses  his  own  disbelief  in  the 
absolute  purity  of  the  truth  as  revealed  through  the  apostles ; 
and  also  dishonors  the  Holy  Spirit  by  imi)lying.  first,  that  He 
lacked  the  power  to  reveal  perfectly  the  will  and  truth  of  God 
through  inspired  men  ;  and  by  implying,  secondly,  that  the  degree 
of  purity  to  l)o  obtained  in  the  truth  revealed  depended  more  upon 
the  character  of  tlie  ai)o-<tles.  than  upon  the  resources  of  wisdom 
and  power  possessed  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Upon  the  next  page  we  find  this  passage  [Prog.  Orth.  209]  :  — 

The  views  of  Christ  and  of  His  truth  containeil  in  the  apostolic  Epistles 
must,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  always  shape  the  religious  and  moral  con- 
ceptions of  the  church.  Xot  that  they  alone  possessed  the  Spirit  of  wisdom 
and  revelation.     lie  is  the  Spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation  in  every  soul  in 


29 

which  He  dwells,  and  there  have  been  some  souls  in  ages  since  the  apostolic 
into  which  He  has  so  abundantly  shed  the  radiance  of  God's  truth  that  they 
have  been  the  spiritual  luminaries  of  their  own  and  following  centuries. 

The  representations  in  this  passage  which  sustain  our  complaint 
are  : 

First,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  of  revelation^  —  not  simply  of  wisdom, 
but  of  revelation  —  has  been  given  to  men  in  ages  since  the  apos- 
tolic ;  in  other  words,  that  the  apostles,  as  endowed  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  with  the  ix)wer  to  bring  revelations  of  God's  will  and  truth 
to  the  world,  have  not  been  the  only  men  of  their  class  in  the 
history  of  the  Christian  Church. 

Secondly,  that  those  in  the  Christian  ages  since  the  apostolic, 
who  have  been  possessed  of  the  Spirit  of  revelation,  or  whom  the 
Holy  Spirit  has  qualified  to  make  divine  revelations  to  men,  have 
not  been  fev:  in  number.  The  belief  announced  is.  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  "the  Spirit  of  revelation  in  every  soul  in  which  He 
dwells." 

Thirdly,  that  some  Christian  men.  living  since  the  New  Testa- 
ment canon  was  closed,  have  been  so  filled  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
with  the  power  and  grace  of  revelation,  that  they  nearly  attained 
the  position  and  authority  of  the  a^jostles  themselves.  For  what 
more,  indeed,  can  be  said  of  the  apostles,  than  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  of  revelation  "so  abundantly  shed  the  radiance  of  God's 
truth  into  their  souls  that  they  have  l^een  the  spiritual  luminaries  of 
their  own  and  following  centuries  "  ? 

Now  if  the  Professor  believes.  —  as  he  certainh'  does  if  he 
accepts  Progressive  Orthodoxy,  —  that  the  aix)stles,  as  endowed 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  make  revelations  of  God's  will  and  truth  to 
the  world,  have  been  succeeded  liy  men  in  large  numbers,  to  whom 
the  same  Holy  Spirit  has  given  the  same  endowment  in  kind. 
and  by  soyne  men  to  whom  the  same  Holy  Spirit  has  given  the 
same  endowment,  not  onh'  in  kind,  but  also  in  such  large  degree 
that  they  have  been  the  spiritual  luminaries  of  their  own  and 
following  centuries,  then  how  can  said  Professor  subscribe  to  the 
Andover  Creed,  and  solemnly  say.  '•!  Ijelieve  that  the  "Word  of 
God  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  Xeic  Testament  is 
the  OSLY  perfect  ruje  of  faith  and  practice  "  ?  If  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  believed  to  be  the  Spirit  of  revelation  in  every  soul  in  which  He 
dwells,  the  Professor,  in  consistency,  must  l)elieve  also  that  there 
7nay  be  Christian  writings  which  stand  on  a  level  with  those  of  the 
apostles. 


30 

We  need  now  to  raise  more  distinctly  the  question,  What,  ac- 
cording to  Progressive  Orthodoxy,  is  the  true  theory  of  the  gene- 
sis of  the  Bible  ? 

1.  First,  it  teaches  that  the  "Word  of  God  comprising  the  Scrip- 
tures is  largely  the  product  of  historical  facts  and  forces.  It  is 
affirmed  to  be  the  declaration  of  Christian  faith,  "that  if  the 
forces  visible  in  sacred  history  appear  to  the  best  human  vision  to 
have  produced  the  Bible,  God  must  have  wished  men  to  believe 
that  they  did  produce  it."     [Prog.  Orth.  194-5.] 

Progressive  Orthodoxy  also  expresses  itself  in  the  following  lan- 
guage \_Prog.  Orth.  p.  194]  :  — 

Possibly,  however,  some  may  think  that  we  have  no  right  to  assume  that 
the  antecedent /flc^s  fully  account  for  the  Bible,  since,  although  it  is  unques- 
tionably to  a  certain  extent  their  product,  a  special  operation  of  Almighty 
power,  of  which  we  are  not  informed,  may  have  given  to  it  its  highest  quaU- 
ties.  But  surely  in  the  absence  of  a  clear  revelation  that  such  special  divine 
power  was  employed,  we  have  no  right  to  assert  its  exercise.  If  without  its 
use  the  Bible,  as  it  stands,  can  be  accounted  for,  it  becomes  imnecessary. 

Several  things  in  this  passage  should  be  distinctly  noticed. 

First,  the  idea  of  any  special  operation  of  Almighty  power  in 
producing  the  Bible,  or  in  giving  it  its  highest  qualities,  is  dis- 
carded. 

Secondly,  it  is  stated,  that  we  are  not  informed  of  any  such 
special  operation  of  divine  power  in  the  production  of  the 
Bible. 

Thirdly,  it  is  implied  that  antecedent  historical  facts,  are  sufficient 
to  account  for  the  Bible  without  the  aid  of  any  such  special  divine 
power. 

How,  then,  we  ask,  can  the  same  man  wlio  makes  these  represen- 
tations, affirm  it  to  be  his  belief,  as  he  does  in  subscribing  to  the 
Creed,  that  the  Bible  is  theTFord  of  God? 

Prof.  Smyth  is  on  the  Associate  Foundation.  The  Associate 
Founders  were  Hopkinsians.  To  show  how  far  removed  the  Pro- 
fessor's views  of  the  holy  Scriptures  are  from  those  of  the  Found- 
ers, I  give  a  few  sentences  from  Dr.  Samuel  Hopkins  himself. 

"  It  is  as  really  impossible,"  he  -wrote,  "  that  any  uninspired  man  or  num- 
ber of  men  .  .  .  should  make  the  writings  which  we  find  in  the  Bible,  as  it 
is  for  them  to  contrive  and  make  the  visible  world;  and  we  have  as  satisfac- 
tory evidence  that  the  Scriptures,  contained  in  the  Bible,  were  written  by 
the  inspiration  of  God,  as  we  have  that  the  siui,  moon  and  stars,  and  all  the 
visible  world  were  made  by  him."     {Hopkins'  Works  vol.  iii.  p.  699.] 


«^xv.vv.vxx-^ 


31 

But,  secondly,  Progressive  Orthodoxy  holds,  not  only  that  the 
Holy  Scriptures  are  largely  the  product  of  '•  facts  and  of  forces  visi- 
ble in  sacred  history."  but  also  that  the  sacred  writers  produced 
them  out  of  their  own  spiritual  life,  their  own  religious  experience. 
The  representation  is  repeatedly  made  that  the  writers  of  the  Bible 
were  favored  with  no  special  or  unique  influence  of  the  Holy  Si)irit 
to  aid  them  in  writing  the  Word  of  God,  but  that  all  their  words 
and  deeds,  their  teaching,  preaching  and  writing,  their  entire  out- 
ward life,  sprung  from  a  common  source,  namely,  their  own  spirit- 
ual or  religious  experience.  In  the  case  of  the  apostles,  for  exam- 
ple, out  of  their  own  ''quickened  and  mightily  invigorated  life 
leaped  "  their  "  new  deeds  of  heroic  devotion  "  [p.  200].  From  the 
same  source  came  also  all  their  vrritings.  The  apostolic  Scrip- 
tures were  simply  the  natural  product  of  the  Christian  exi^erience, 
feeling  and  sentiment  existing  in  the  hearts  of  the  apostolic  writers. 
Progressive  Orthodoxy  affirms  [pp.  196,  198,  202,  222]  that: 

*'  There  is  not  a  scintilla  of  evidence  that  God  assumed  to  the  minds  of  the 
apostles  a  new  relation  as  soon  as  they  sat  down  to  write,  and  that,  in  con- 
sequence, what  they  wrote  bad  a  different  quality  from  what  they  said. 
.  .  .  The  assumption,*'  we  are  informed,  "of  a  special  activity  of  the 
divine  Spirit  upon  the  apostles  and  other  writers  of  Scripture  in  the  act  of 
composition,  endowing  what  came  from  their  pens  with  qualities  possessed 
by  no  other  Christian  teaching,  is  a  most  fruitful  source  of  confusion  in  the 
endeavor  to  find  out  what  Scripture  is.  It  is  Insisted  not  only  that  there  is 
no  evidence  of  such  an  act,  but  that  the  supposition  of  its  existence  is  con- 
tiary  to  the  facts  which  lie  on  the  face  of  the  Scriptures.  ...  It  is  pure 
scliolasticism,''  we  are  told,  "  to  try  to  find  an  explanation  of  the  fifty-first 
Psalm  in  any  other  thing  than  the  heart  whose  penitence  pulses  througli 
it.  .  .  .  "We  are  finding  out."  says  Progressive  Orthodoxy,  "  that  the 
seat  of  the  prophetic  teaching  was  the  moral  and  religious  nature  of  the 
inspired  seer  alone." 

Again  we  have  these  declarations  [pp.  201.  202]  : 

Paul  says  that  the  revelation  of  Christ,  which  was  the  source  of  his 
preaching,  and  the  ground  of  its  authority,  was  given  in  his  conversion.  .  .  . 
The  light  into  which  he  was  born  was  that  from  which  he  taught.  .  .  . 
In  saying  that  the  apostolic  teaching  is  the  expression  of  the  spiritual  life  of 
its  authors,  and  wears  the  impress  of  their  respective  personalities,  we  do  not 
take  one  jot  or  tittle  from  its  sacredness  as  a  revelation." 

These  citations  teach,  with  emphasis, 

1.  That  all  special  and  immediate  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
upon  the  Sacred  "Writers  to  aid  them  in  writing  the  Word  of  God 
was  withheld. 


32 

2.  That  the  apostolic  teaching  was  simply  the  expression  of  the 
spiritual  life  of  its  authors. 

3.  That  the  source  of  the  prophetic  teaching  was  "the  moral 
and  religious  nature  "  of  the  prophet  alone. 

4.  That  it  is  the  purest  scholasticism  to  believe  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  exerted  any  immediate,  special  and  direct  influence  upon  the 
mind  and  heart  of  the  writer  of  the  fifty-first  Psalm  to  aid  him  in 
the  composition  of  that  immortal  Scriptui'e. 

5.  That  it  is  a  most  fruitful  source  of  confusion  in  the  endeavor 
to  find  out  what  Scripture  is,  to  believe,  as  the  Founders  of  An- 
dover  Seminary  did,  the  apostolic  testimony,  that  '"AH  Scripture 
is  given  by  inspiration  of  God." 

6.  That  it  is  a  mere  assumption,  that  there  was  any  "  special 
activity  of  the  divine  Spirit  upon  the  apostles  and  other  writers 
of  Scripture  in  the  act  of  composition,  endowing  what  came  from 
their  pens  with  qualities  possessed  by  no  other  Christian  teach- 
ing." 

7.  That  "  there  is  not  a  scintilla  of  evidence  that  God  assumed 
to  the  minds  of  the  apostles  a  new  relation  as  soon  as  they  sat 
down  to  write,  and  that  in  consequence,  what  they  wrote  had  a 
different  quality  from  what  they  said." 

But  why,  we  ask  in  reply,  is  this  last  representation  so  repeat- 
edly made  and  insisted  upon?  For  the  ''  Progressive  "  Divine  does 
not  himself  believe  that  there  is  a  scintilla  of  evidence  that  God 
assumed  to  the  minds  of  the  apostles  a  new  relation  when  they 
rose  up  to  sj^eaJc  God's  truth.  He  does  not  believe  that  "Holy 
men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  but 
that  they  spoke  and  wrote,  and  ordered  all  their  outward  conduct, 
as  they  were  moved  by  historic  facts  and  forces,  and  by  their  inner 
light  and  life. 

It  is  the  common  Christian  belief,  that  the  apostles  were  in- 
spired both  to  preach  and  to  write  God's  truth.  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy holds,  that  the  inner,  spiritual  life  of  an  apostle  inspired  alike 
.  his  right  and  noble  conduct,  and  the  Scripture  he  wrote.  But 
every  apostle's  conduct  Avas  not  always  right  and  noble.  Peter 
'•'•dissembled"  so  that  Paul  rebuked  him  sharply.  Peter's  inner 
life  did  not  keep  him  from  wrong  action.  How,  then,  do  we  know 
it  kept  him  from  wrong  writing?  If  it  allowed  him  to  dissemble  in 
his  dealing  with  his  friends,  how  do  we  know  that  it  did  not  allow 
him  to  dissemlile,  or  in  some  other  way  to  fail  of  writing  the  truth, 
when  he  wrote  those  passages  in  his  First   Epistle,  upon    which 


^....,...>.>.s..^.^s.xv...xxx^y..p^^^^^^^^ 


33 

Progressive  Orthodox'u  founds  its  stupendous  dogma  that  the 
vastest  and  grandest  missiouaiy  fields  under  the  gospel  of  Christ 
are  not,  and  never  have  been,  in  this  world,  but  are  in  Hades? 
And  Peter  was  liy  no  means  the  only  sacred  writer,  whose  outward 
conduct  was  not  right.  Now  we  jjress  the  question ;  if  this  inner, 
spiritual  life  was  the  sole  source,  alike  of  their  outward  conduct, 
and  their  writings,  and  their  conduct  was  imperfect,  what  assur- 
ance have  we  that  the  Scriptures  which  they  gave  to  the  world 
were  not  imperfect  also  ? 

Our  objection  to  this  theory,  as  one  to  be  held  and  taught  in  an 
Andover  chair,  is,  that  it  is  utterly  out  of  sympathy  with,  and  re- 
pugnant to,  the  traditions,  the  Spirit  and  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary. 
The  Creed  declares  the  Scriptures  to  be  ''The  "Word  of  God  ; "  but 
according  to  this  new  theory,  they  would  more  properly  be  called, 
"  The  "Word  of  the  spiritual  man."  The  Creed  honors  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  this  new  theor}'  depreciates  them  by  describing  them  as 
having  the  same  genesis  as  the  writings  of  any  spiritually  minded 
person  —  for  the  Holy  Spirit  is  declared  to  be  the  Spirit  of  reve- 
lation in  every  Christian.  The  Professor  indeed  says,  that  "The 
apostles  were  the  bearers  of  a  revelation  made  immediately  to 
each  of  them  by  the  Spirit  of  God  "  [p.  200].  That  sounds  well. 
But  according  to  this  new  theory,  the  very  same  can  be  said  of  any 
Christian  man,  for  this  gift  of  revelation  is  a  part  of  every  Chris- 
tian's spiritual  life.  Indeed,  it  is  stated  [p.  201],  that,  "The 
revelation  of  which  each  apostle  was  the  bearer  is  not,  therefore, 
to  be  thought  of  as  a  set  of  religious  ideas  made  over  to  him  to  be 
held  as  an  external  possession.  .  .  .  For  it  was  in  essence  a  per- 
sonal experience  ©f  Jesus  Christ  in  and  through  whom  he  lived." 

Consequently  we  find  in  this  new  theology  no  doctrine  of  the 
inspiration  of  the  Bible.  The  common  view  of  the  origin  of  the 
Bible  is  vigorously-  and  repeatedly  rejected.  Not  only  is  no  defini- 
tion of  inspiration  given,  but  it  is  asserted  that  "  such  a  definition 
is  not  needed  to  explain  sacred  Scripture"  [p.  232].  "We  have 
never  seen,"  says  the  Respondent,  "  a  definition  of  inspiration  whicli 
was  rooted  in  the  realities  of  sacred  history"  [p.  232].  Yet  this 
same  writer  gives  a  definition  of  the  Bible,  —  one  designed  appar- 
ently to  supersede  all  the  inadequate  definitions  and  common  ideas 
of  inspiration,  and  to  impart  to  students  and  others  such  a  clear 
and  illuminating  conception  of  what  the  Scriptures  really  are,  that 
that  conception  shall  be  to  them  ever  after  a  mighty  stimulus,  and 
an  unspeakably  precious  consolation.    The  definition  is  this  :  "  The 


34 

Bible  is  the  representation  in  icriting  of  God's  historical  revelation 
of  himself  to  man,  idiich  has  come  immediately  from  that  revelation 
as  it  passed  through  its  successive  stages  \_Prog.  Orth.  p.  233]. 
We  desire  to  treat  this  defiuitiou  with  all  respect.  It  is  the  only 
one,  it  is  believed,  in  this  entire  theological  work.  Progressive 
Divines  are  not  handy  at  definitions,  and  need  to  be  encouraged. 
This  will  do  for  a  beginning.  But,  Gentlemen  of  the  Board,  we 
trust  it  is  not  improper  to  remind  you,  that  Article  XX.  of  the  As- 
sociate Foundation,  requires,  that  the  Visitors  shall  "take  care, 
that  the  duties  of  every  Professor  on  this  Foundation  shall  be 
intelligibly  .  .  .  discharged." 

True,  Progressive  Orthodoxy  speaks  of  adding  to  all  the  other 
qualifications  of  the  apostles,  "that  of  pre-eminent  endowment  of 
the  Holy  Spirit."  But  it  must  be  remembered,  that  this  same 
spiritual  endowment  is  declared  to  be  nothing  different  iii  kind  from 
that  which  enabled  the  apostles  to  live  ''in  a  new  and  higher 
way"  [p.  200]  and  nothing  different  in  hind  from  that  vouchsafed 
to  all  Christians.  The  inspiration,  as  spiritual  illumination, 
which  the  apostles  received  to  aid  them  in  communicating,  by 
teaching,  preaching  and  writing,  God's  truth,  was  the  same  which 
they  received  when  they  came  into  a  knowledge  of  the  Christ  in 
them.  Of  Paul,  for  instance,  it  is  stated,  that  "The  light  into 
which  he  was  born  was  that  from  which  he  taught "  [p.  201]. 

In  view  of  the  written  statements  and  representations  now  pre- 
sented, for  which  Prof.  Smyth  is  responsible,  we  are  warranted  in 
making  the  following  affirmations. 

1.  First,  the  Respondent,  as  judged  by  these  writings,  does  not 
believe  in  any  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  that  has  ever,  to  his 
knowledge,  been  defined. 

2.  Secondly,  he  does  not  believe  that  any  si)ecial  and  immediate 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  vouchsafed  to  the  sacred  writers 
to  aid  them  in  writing  the  Word  of  God. 

3.  Thirdly,  he  does  believe  and  teach,  that  the  Scriptures,  in 
common  with  all  the  words  and  deeds,  the  daily  life  and  conduct, 
the  revelations,  the  teachings,  and  the  preaching  of  the  sacred 
writers,  were  the  product  of  historic  facts  and  forces,  and  of  tlieir 
own  spiritual  life,  or  religious  experience. 

4.  Fourthly,  he  believes  and  teaches,  that  this  spiritual  life,  or, 
in  the  case  of  the  apostles.  Christian  experience,  though  coming 
itself  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  which 
enabled  them  to  reveal  God's  will  and  truth  to  man,  did  not  differ 


35 

in  kind  from  the  new  and  spiritual  lift'  granted  to  all  regenerate 

men. 

5.  Fifthly,  he  believes  and  teaches,  that  all  revelations,  other 
than  Christ  himself,  coming  to  ns  as  from  God,  must  present  their 
credentials  to  Christ's  truth  in  our  mind  and  hearts. 

6.  Sixthly,  he  believes  and  teaches,  that  Christ,  by  his  own 
example  in  amending  and  superseding  portions  of  the  ancient 
Scriptures,  teaches  us  to  do  the  same  ;  that  is,  ''  to  apply  Christian 
principles  to  all  the  law  and  the  prophets,  and  to  regard  all  in  them 
which  is  not  consistent  with  those  principles  as  superseded  by  the 
new  revelation." 

7.  Seventhly,  he  holds  and  teaches  that  we  can  hardly  believe 
that  the  truth  revealed  by  the  apostles  had  such  absolute  purity  as 
it  would  have  possessed,  had  the  apostles  themselves  been  perfect 
beings. 

8.  Eighthly,  he  maintains  and  inculcates  "  the  new  notion," 
that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  a  vehicle  of  revelation,  the  perfection 
of  which  vehicle  is  by  no  means  implied  in  the  value  of  the  reve- 
lation, and  that  "  Christian  faith  is  not  necessarily  committed  to 
the  infallibility  of  the  Bible." 

Now  in  respect  to  these  views  of  the  Bible,  we  submit  the  fol- 
lowing declarations  : 

1.  First,  these  views  depreciate  and  dishonor  the  holy  Scriptures, 
by  representing  that  their  source,  which  is  alleged  to  have  been  the 
reli2;ious  experience  of  the  writers,  was  the  same  in  lind  as  that  of 
the  writings  of  all  spiritual  or  regenerate  men. 

2.  Secondly,  they  dishonor  the  Holy  Spirit  by  representing  that 
he  had  not  the  capacity  or  power  to  communicate  religious  truth  to 
the  world  in  absolute  purity  through  imperfect  men  like  the  prophets 
and  apostles. 

3.  Thirdly,  they  violently  antagonize  the  Andover  Creed  in  vari- 
ous ways,  as  we  have  already  shown,  but  especially  in  this,  that 
they  erect  in  our  mind  and  hearts  a  stan(h\rd  of  truth  and  faith 
equal  or  superior  to  that  of  the  holy  Scriptures,  and  thus  render  it 
impossible  that  the  Bible  should  be  ''  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith 
and  practice." 

4.  Fourthly,  these  views  are  contrary  and  repugnant  to  Art.  II. 
of  the  Statutes  of  the  Associate  Foundation.  Prof.  Egbert  C. 
Smyth  is  placed  on  that  Foundation.  Art.  II.  says,  that  ''flvery 
Professor  on  the  Associate  Foundation  shall  be  .  .  .  an  orthodox 
and  consistent  Calvinist."     Now  that  terminology,  "  an  orthodox 


36 

and  consistent  Calvinist,"  had  a  definite  and  well  known  meaning 
at  the  time  the  Seminary  was  founded.  It  meant  a  Calvinist  of 
the  Hopkinsian  School.  And  it  needs  no  argument  before  this 
Board  to  show  that  uo  man  can,  by  any  possibility,  be  a  Calvinist 
of  that  school,  and  hold  such  views  of  the  Bible  as  we  have  been 
considering. 

5.  Fifthly,  for  a  Professor,  on  the  Associate  Foundation,  to  be- 
lieve and  teach  such  notions  of  the  Bible  renders  it  impossible  for 
him  to  be  continued  on  that  Foundation,  inasmuch  as  Art.  III.  of 
the  Statutes  of  that  Foundation  requires,  that  "  no  man  shall  be 
continued  a  Professor  on  said  Foundation,  who  shall  not  continue 
to  approve  himself  a  man  of  sound  and  orthodox  principles  in 
Divinity  agreeably  to  the  aforesaid  Creed." 

Now,  Gentlemen  of  the  Board,  we  ask  your  judgment  upon  the 
question,  whether  it  be  possible  for  one  to  be  "a  man  of  sound 
and  orthodox  principles  in  divinity,"  in  the  meaning  and  intention 
of  the  Associate  Founders  as  expressed  in  their  Statutes  and  espe- 
cially in  their  Creed,  and  yet  hold  beliefs  respecting  the  Holy 
Scriptures  so  utterly  antagonistic  to  the  Statutes  and  the  Creed  of 
this  Foundation  as  are  the  beliefs  set  forth  in  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy, and  in  the  Andover  Bevieiv,  for  which  Professor  Smyth  is 
responsible. 

II.  Our  second  particular  complaint  is,  that  Professor  Egbert  C. 
Smyth  holds,  maintains  and  inculcates,  "  That  Christ  in  the  days 
of  his  humiliation  loas  a  finite  being,  limited  in  all  his  attributes, 
cajyacities and  attainments;  in  other  tvords  teas  not  God  and  Man.'" 

In  presenting  the  grounds  for  this  complaint,  we  first  call  atten- 
tion to  the  statement  of  the  Creed,  which  is;  ''That  the  only 
Redeemer  of  the  elect  is  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  who  for  this  pur- 
pose became  man,  and  continues  to  be  God  and  man  in  two  distinct 
natures  and  one  person  forever."  The  Creed  also  affirms  "•  that, 
agreeably  to  these  Scriptures,  God  is  a  Spirit,  infinite,  eternal,  and 
unchangeable  in  his  being,  wisdom,  power,"  etc. 

It  is  clearly  affirmed  in  these  Creed-statements,  that  the  Re- 
deemer is  "  tlie  eternal  Son  of  God,"  that  He  "became  man;" 
and  that  He  "  continues  to  be  God  and  man  in  two  distinct  na- 
tures and  one  person  forever,"  also  that  "God  is  a  Spirit,  infi- 
nite, eternal  and  unchangeable  in  his  ....  wisdom."  It  fol- 
lows then,  that  when  "the  eternal  Sou  of  God  "  "  became  man,  and 
continued  in  his  earthly  life  to  be   God  and  man,  he  continued  to 


37 

be  God  '  infinite,  eternal  and  unchangeable  '  in  his  heiny,  vnsdom 
and  poicer."  AccoidiugW,  whatever  he  knew  hef(jre  his  iuearna- 
tion  he  knew  during  his  incarnation.  If,  as  God,  lie  was  omni- 
scient before  he  became  man,  he  was  omniscient,  as  God,  when,  in 
his  humanity,  he  continued  to  be  '•  God  and  man." 

What  now  has  been  the  teaching  of  the  Respondent  ?  On  pp. 
227-8  of  Progressive  Orthodoxy  we  find  the  following  passage : 

Even  if  one  is  convinced  that  our  Lord  accepted  the  traditional  view  of 
the  authorship  of  the  books  in  question  [The  Pentateuch],  he  cannot  liold 
that  His  authority  is  committed  to  that  view  until  he  has  satisfied  himself 
that  Christ  claimed  to  be  omniscient  during  the  days  of  his  humiliation,  —a 
belief  irreconcilable  with  his  own  declaration  that  He  knew  neither  the  day 
nor  the  hour  of  his  second  coming. 

"We  have  no  occasion  now  to  consider  this  peculiar  reasoning, 
save  to  notice  one  of  the  remarkable  assumptions  in  it,  namely, 
that  no  one  can  satisfy  himself  that  Christ  claimed  to  be  omnisci- 
ent, in  view  of  Christ's  own  admission,  that,  as  the  Son,  he  did 
not  know  the  time  of  his  second  coming.  Nor  do  we  care  to  dwell 
one  moment  upon  the  equally  remarkable  implication,  that  Christ 
left  on  record  no  testimony  other  than  this  upon  the  great  question 
of  his  equality  with  the  Father,  or  of  his  true  deity.  But  we  do 
call  attention  to  the  representation  made  here,  that  no  one  can 
satisfy  himself  "that  Christ  claimed  to  be  omniscient."  Evi- 
dently the  writer  himself  is  not  satisfied  that  Christ  made  this 
claim,  and  does  not  believe  that  he  i';a.s  omniscient.  How,  then,  can 
that  writer  subscribe  to  the  Creed  and  say,  "I  believe,"  that 
"the  eternal  Son  of  God"  "became  man  and  continues  to  be 
God  and  man  "  ?  Only  as,  at  the  same  time  he  denies  it  to  be  his 
belief,  that  God  is  "infinite,  eternal  and  unchangeable"  "in  his 
wisdom"?  Surely,  unless  God  is  finite  and  changeable,  he  had 
all  the  knowledge  when  he  was  God  and  man,  which  He  had  had 
from  all  eternity,  and  has  now. 

Moreover,  we  submit,  that  no  man,  who  really  believes  that 
Christ,  in  his  earthly  life,  was  "  God  and  man."  who  is  even 
friendly  to  that  doctrine,  and  regards  himself  as  under  obligation  to 
maintain  it,  would  ever  have  attempted,  in  this  way  or  in  any  way, 
to  set  forth  the  impossibility  of  one's  believing  in  Christ's  omni- 
science and  deity.  What  would  3'ou,  Gentlemen  of  the  Board, 
think  of  the  man,  who  professedly  holding  the  doctrine  of  the  deity 
of  Christ,  and  under  promise  to  inculcate  it  and  to  oppose  the  con- 


38 

trary  belief,  should  attempt,  in  this  way  or  in  any  way,  to  maintain 
the  impossibility  of  one's  believing  ?/iai  same  doctrine  —  the  very 
doctrine  he  professes  to  believe  and  has  pledged  himself  to  inculcate  ? 
Can  any  man  rightfully  hold  the  chair  of  a  Professor  in  the  Serai- 
nary  at  Andover,  who  treats  in  this  way  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's 
omniscience  and  deity,  —  the  doctrine  of  all  evangelical  creeds,  of 
every  "  orthodox  and  consistent  Calvinist,"  and  of  every  man  "  of 
sound  and  orthodox  principles  in  divinity"?  Not  to  believe  this 
doctrine,  but  to  disparage  it,  is  to  believe  and  advocate  the  view 
that  Christ  was  a  finite  being  possessed  neither  of  omniscience  nor 
of  any  other  infinite  attribute. 

One  might  suppose  that  the  Respondent  would  explain  himself 
by  saying,  that  Christ  as  man  was  ignorant,  but  as  God  was  omni- 
scient ;  as  vian  was  weary  and  faint,  but  as  God  He  fainted  not 
neither  was  weary.  But  he  is  barred  from  making  this  explana- 
tion by  his  own  teaching  respecting  the  personality  of  Christ. 
''The  evidences,"  he  says,  "  of  a  complete  human  nature  multi- 
ply as  we  read,  but  not  less  manifest  is  the  one  Person  who  is 
the  centre  to  which  all  attributes  and  acts  are  ever  referred." 
[Prog.  Orth.  pp.  22-3.]  According  to  this  statement,  we  have  no 
right  to  ascribe  certain  works  and  attributes  to  Christ  as  God, 
and  other  works  and  attributes  to  Him  as  man.  It  will  not  do  to 
say  that  Christ  in  his  huvian  nature  was  weary,  but  in  his  divine 
nature  was  unlimited  in  his  strength.  And  for  the  same  reason  it 
is  not  permissible  to  represent  that  Christ  as  a  man  was  limited  in 
knowledge,  but  as  God  was  unlimited.  It  would  seem,  then,  that 
the  Respondent  must  believe,  that  the  eternal  Son  of  God.  during 
the  days  of  his  humiliation,  was  a  finite  being,  and  of  course  lim- 
ited in  all  his  capacities  and  attainments. 

We  cite  another  passage  in  support  of  our  complaint  [Prog. 
Orth.  p.  32]  :  — 

There  was  not  only  growth  of  the  humanity  of  Jesus,  but  a  progressive 
union  witli  tlie  divine.  Here  is  the  truth  in  the  theories  of  the  Kenotists. 
who  maintain  that  the  Word,  at  the  Incarnation,  laid  aside,  or  suspended 
the  exercise  of.  his  attributes  of  omniscience,  omnipotence,  and  the  like. 
This  is  but  a  clumsj-  and  somewhat  violent  and  unethical  method  of  appro- 
priating certain  undeniable  facts;  such  as  the  limitation  of  Jesus's  knowl- 
edge, the  perfect  human  reality  of  his  earthly  life,  the  veritable  growth  of 
his  consciousness  and  personality  from  the  moment  of  the  Incarnation. 

We  find  in  this  passage  a  distinct  recognition,  on  the  part  of 
the  writer,  of  truth  in  the  views  of  the  Kenotists,  who  maintain, 


I liiiiiiiriiiiitwMiiiiiiii-iiiimyiaH 


39 

it  is  said,  ••  that  the  Word,  at  the  Incarnation,  laid  aside,  or  sus- 
pended the  exercise  of,  his  attributes  of  omniscience,  omniix)tence 
and  the  like."  These  limitations  of  Christ's  knowledge  and  ix)wer, 
during  his  incarnate  life,  are  declared  b}'  the  writer  to  be  ••  undenia- 
ble facts. ' '  The  Kenotic  method  of  appropriating  them  is  criticised, 
but  the  ••  undeniable  facts"  remain  all  the  same,  and  there  is  no 
recognition  of  any  opposing  facts  to  be  accounted  for. 

It  should  also  be  obsei-ved,  that  the  limitations  spoken  of  in  this 
passage  are  ascriljed  to  the  entire  personality  of  our  Lord.  It  is 
represented  as  an  undeniable  fact  that  there  was  ••  a  verital)le 
growth  of  his  consciousness  and  personality  from  the  moment  of 
the  Incarnation." 

We  see  no  way  to  interiDret  this  passage  except  as  an  unqualified 
affirmation  on  the  part  of  the  writer  of  his  own  l^elief  that  the 
one  Person,  Christ,  in  his  earthly  life,  was  a  finite  l3eing  limited  in 
all  his  attributes,  capacities  and  attainments,  —  a  belief  utterly 
irreconcilable  with  the  statements  of  the  Creed. 

We  will  bring  to  your  notice  only  one  other  extract  in  support 
of  this  complaint.  In  an  editorial  in  the  Andover  Review  [May, 
1886,  p.  o22]  it  is  said,  that  --The  limitations  to  which  his  humanity 
subjected  him  are  recognized ;  but  as  the  glorified  Christ  he  is 
delocalized,  unlimited,  is  with  his  chm-ch  alway  unto  the  end  of 
the  world." 

This  language  indicates,  that  in  the  Respondent's  belief,  the  Son 
of  God,  when  in  his  earthly  life,  was  a  limited  being,  possessing  no 
infinite  attribute  ;  but  when  glorified  was  an  unlimited  being,  en- 
dowed with  all  the  infinite  attributes  of  Deity.  How  a  limited 
being  could  ever  become  an  unlimited  being,  does  not  appear ;  but 
the  statement  seems  to  be  —  not  only  that  such  a  change  of  the 
finite  into  the  absolute  was  possible,  but  that  it  was  actually  effected. 

Now  in  view  of  all  these  citations,  the  theory  of  the  Professor 
appears  to  be,  that  the  second  Person  of  the  Trinity,  in  His  incar- 
nation must  have  contracted  himself,  and  during  His  earthly  life 
was  in  a  dwarfed  condition,  subject  in  the  entirety  of  His  constitu- 
tion or  iDcrsonality  to  the  limitations  of  a  created  being  ;  and  that, 
at  the  time  of  His  ascension  and  glorification.  He  assumed  again  the 
absolute  attributes  of  deity,  taking  with  him  now  His  humanity,  and 
continuing  to  be  the  Son  of  man  forever. 

This  is  no  new  theory.  Its  absurdity,  and  its  incongruity  with 
facts  in  Christ's  life  and  with  Scriptural  statements  are  apparent. 
Moreover  tlie   view  is   irreverent,  and   dishonors   the    Redeemer. 


40 

Students  who  become  familiar  with  such  representations  of  the 
ignorance,  aud  of  the  limited  wisdom  and  power,  of  our  Lord, 
cannot  have  exalted  conceptions  of  either  his  character  or  his 
teachings. 

It  ought  not  to  have  been  surprising,  that  an  Andover  student, 
when  under  examination  two  or  three  years  ago,  said,  in  response 
to  a  question,  that  "  no  statement  of  Christ,  no  matter  how  posi- 
tive, in  affirmation  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch, 
could  now  be  accepted  as  decisive,  because  He  was  not  omni- 
scient, and  especially  because  He  was  not  up  to  present  date  in 
the  higher  criticism."  Can  it  be  strange,  that  under  the  influence 
of  such  representations  as  we  have  now  cited,  the  character  of 
God's  Word,  and  of  Christ  himself,  should  be  subject  to  the  most 
irreverent  handling? 

AYe  affirm  therefore,  that  this  theory  of  the  limitations  of  Christ's 
attributes  and  attainments  during  the  days  of  His  humiliation  is 
discordant  with  the  spirit  and  traditions  of  Andover  Seminary. 
It  is  not  the  belief  expressed  in  the  Creed,  and  which  the  Pro- 
fessor has  promised  to  maintain  and  inculcate,  but  is  irreconcilably 
antagonistic  to  that  belief.  Nor  can  any  man  who  holds  such 
views  be  "an  orthodox  and  consistent  Calvinist"  according  to  the 
statutory  requirement  of  the  Associate  Foundation. 

III.  Our  third  specific  complaint  is,  that  Professor  Smyth  "  holds, 
maintains  and  inculcates,'''  "  That  no  m.an  has  2^ou:er  or  capacity 
to  repent  icithout  Jinoivledge  of  God  in  Christ." 

Our  view  is,  that  the  Constitution  and  Statutes  of  Andover 
Seminary  do  not  allow  any  Professor,  while  occupying  one  of  its 
chairs,  to  hold  or  teach  such  a  belief.  Every  Professor,  in  sub- 
scribing to  the  Creed,  says,  — 

I  moreover  believe  .  .  .  that  God's  decrees  perfectly  consist  with  human 
hberty;  God's  universal  agency  with  the  agency  of  man;  and  man"s  depend- 
ence with  his  accountabiUty;  that  man  has  understanding  and  corporeal 
strenuth  to  do  all  that  God  requires  of  him;  so  iliat  nothing,  but  the  sinner's 
aversion  to  holiness,  j^revents  his  salvation. 

Several  questions  may  be  raised  as  to  these  statements  of  the  Creed. 

First,  it  speaks  of  man's  agency,  of  mans  dependence,  and 
affirms  that  man  has  understanding  and  corporeal  strength,  but 
what  man  is  referred  to  ?  Man  living  after  the  incarnation  of  the 
Word,  and  having  knowledge  of  God  as  revealed  in  Christ?     Cer- 


41 

tainly  not.  Man  "  ?m  Christ.'"  or  "m  vynoii  "  with  him,  that  is, 
the  Christian  man?  By  no  means.  Man  not  a  Christian,  yet  con- 
ceived of  as  organically  and  vitally  united,  in  common  veith  all 
men,  to  Christ  as  the  Head  of  the  race?  Assuredly  not.  That 
conception  of  the  relation  of  Christ  to  the  human  race,  the 
Founders  of  the  Seminary  were  familiar  with,  and  they  decisively 
rejected  it,  as  will  be  shown.  By  man,  they  meant  man  as  God 
made  him  in  his  intellectual  and  bodily  powers,  man  as  constitu- 
tionally endowed  by  his  Creator,  and  not  as  empowered  after  his 
natural  constitution  was  determined  and  made  actual.  The  refer- 
ence of  the  Creed  is  to  man  as  man  —  to  man  not  as  morally,  but 
as  natn rally  constituted  and  empowered  at  the  time  of  his  creation. 

Secondly,  what  did  the  Founders  mean  by  the  declaration,  that 
'•  man  has  understanding  ...  to  do  all  that  God  requires  of 
him"?  They  meant  simply  that  he  has  intellectual  ability  to  ap- 
prehend what  God  commands  —  all  mental  strength  needful  to  en- 
able him  to  obey  God.  What  they  assert  is  that  man,  by  virtue 
of  being  created  as  he  was,  has  this  God-given  endowment  of 
uuderstauding  —  the  power  of  understanding,  and  actual  under- 
standing —  understanding,  for  instance  of  sin  and  righteousness ; 
and  if  of  them,  then  of  law:  and  if  of  law,  then  of  a  Lawgiver; 
and  if  of  a  Lawgiver,  then  of  personal  responsibility  to  him  ;  and 
•of  his  own  obligation  to  repent ;  then  of  reward  and  punishment. 
Man  as  man  has  understanding  enough  to  do  what  God  requires  of 
him,  so  that  when  he  has  sinned,  nothing  but  his  own  aversion  to 
holiness  prevents  his  repentance  and  his  salvation.  If  at  any 
time  he  does  not  act  up  to  his  understanding  in  doing  God's  will, 
he  is  without  excuse,  and  is  justly  exposed  to  eternal  condemnation. 
This  the  Professor,  in  taking  the  Creed,  affirms  to  be  his  belief. 

Thirdly,  what  did  the  Founders  mean  by  the  phrase  "corporeal 
strength"  ?  They  meant  what  they  said,  bodily  power,  physical 
ability.  Not  a  few  of  God's  connnands  cannot  be  obeyed  except 
through  the  powers  and  the  strength  of  the  body.  Dr.  Samuel 
Spring  was  one  of  the  writers  of  the  Andover  Creed  ;  and  he  left 
on  record  the  meaning  which  he  attached  to  the  language  we  are 
now  considering.  "  Natural  ability,"  he  wrote,  '^  is  the  intellectual 
and  bodily  strength  of  man  to  perform  every  action  which  God 
requires  of  him." 

As  natural  ability  consists  in  having  intellectual  and  bodily  strength  to 
perform  every  action  required  of  man,  it  is  evident  that  moral  ability  must 
consist  in  a  willing  mind.     [Moral  Disquisitions,  pp.  172-3.] 


42 

The  meaning  of  the  Founders,  then,  in  this  twofold  statement 
of  their  Creed,  is  that  7nan  has  natural  ability,  that  is  real  and  full 
power,  to  do  all  that  God  requires  of  him. 

They  also  believed,  aud  required  every  Professor  to  believe,  that 
man  is  ^'morally  incapable  of  recovering  the  image  of  his  Creator, 
which  was  lost  in  Adam,"  that  is,  that  he  ivill  not  do  what  he  has 
ability  to  do  in  obeying  God,  or  the  gospel  of  Christ,  and  therefore 
is  under  righteous  condemnation. 

The  belief,  then,  presented  in  the  Andover  Creed  is,  that  man 
wherever  found,  cannot  be  blameworthy  in  not  obeying  God,  un- 
less he  has  intellectual  aud  bodily  strength  to  obey  Him.  Obliga- 
tion is  commensurate  with  ability  ;  it  can  never  transcend  it.  But 
man  as  man  has  intellectual  and  bodily  strength,  that  is,  real  and 
adequate  ability  to  do  all  that  God  requires  of  him.  Consequently 
when  he  has  sinned,  he  has  understanding  of  his  sin  and  of  his  ill- 
desert,  and  so  is  able  to  condemn  his  sin  and  turn  from  it,  confess 
it  and  cry  for  mercy.  If  he  does  not  do  this,  it  is  simply  because 
he  is  iimcilling  to  be  holy.  Thus  it  is  true,  that  "  nothing  but  his 
own  aversion  to  holiness  irrevents  his  salvation." 

It  should  now  be  added,  that  the  Founders  of  the  Seminary  re- 
garded this  doctrine  of  man's  "  natural  ability,"  as  thus  stated,  to 
be  an  eminent  and  cardinal  doctrine  in  their  Creed.  The  whole 
system  of  their  theological  belief  demanded  that  this  truth  should 
have  marked  emphasis  in  the  teachings  of  their  Seminary.  Every- 
body will  admit  this,  who  knows  what  the  New  England  Theology 
is,  and  that  the  theology  of  the  Founders,  and,  of  course,  of  their 
Creed,  was  that  Theology.  Andover  Seminary  would  never  have 
been  founded,  had  this  one  fundamental  truth  been  excluded  from 
the  professed  doctrinal  basis  of  the  Institution ;  for  the  opposite 
view  of  man's  relation  to  the  requirements  of  God  was  extremely 
distasteful  to  the  Founders.  No  one  of  them  was  more  positive  or 
influential  in  the  planning  and  establishing  of  the  Seminary  than 
Dr.  Samuel  Spring.  And  "  he  was  often  heard  to  say,"  as  tradi- 
tion tells  us,  '^  that  he  would  sooner  see  the  whole  Seminary  sunk 
in  the  depths  of  the  ocean  than  have  its  Professors  teach  the  doc- 
trine of  '  the  sinner's  inability  to  repent,'  and  the  doctrine  of  '  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity,'  and  the  doctrine  of 
'a  limited  atonement.'"  This  tradition  is  doubtless  believed 
even  by  Dr.  D.  T.  Fiske,  now  President  of  the  Andover  Board  of 
Trustees;  for  in  his  pamplilet  on  the  Andover  Creed  [p.  28^.  he 
cites  it  from  The  Congregationalist  of  June  21,  1850.    He  wrote  his 


imi¥mmTl¥llW!MMM 


43 

pamphlet  in  defence  and  advocacy  of  teaching,  on  Andover  Foun- 
dations, the  New  Departure  doctrines,  one  of  which,  as  we  shall 
show,  is,  that  man  of  himself  has  not  the  ability  to  do  all  that 
God  requires  of  him.  How  the  fact,  that  this  view,  which  was  so 
alarming  and  odious  to  one  of  the  Founders  of  the  Seminary, 
strengthened  Dr.  Fiske's  argument  in  advocacy  of  now  teaching 
that  same  odious  view  at  Andover,  it  is  difficult  to  see. 

But  we  are  not  dependent  upon  tradition  for  Dr.  Spring's  l^elief 
and  intention  upon  this  point.  In  a  letter  to  Dr.  Leonard  Woods, 
dated  Aug.  1st,  1807,  and  published  in  Dr.  Woods'  History  of  the 
Andover  Theological  Seminary  [pp.  497-8]  Dr.  Spring  wrote  as 
follows : 

1,  Is  not  this  a  fact,  —  that  the  Bible,  which  is  the  infallible  guide  of 
truth,  whether  we  comprehend  the  connection  or  not,  in  all  the  commands 
it  enjoins  on  sinners,  goes  manifestly  on  the  principle  that  they,  as  we  un- 
derstand the  doctrine  of  ability,  in  all  cases,  have  natural  ability  to  begin 
to  repent  or  be  holy  '? 

2.  Now  shall  we  believe  this,  while  we  theorise,  or  shall  we  disbe- 
lieve it  means  what  it  says  and  make  the  Bible  bend  to  our  theory,  or  shall 
we  come  to  a  solemn  pause  and  query  whether  we  do  not  theorise  too  fast '? 
Human  reason  must  not  make  itself  the  standard,  in  opposition  to  the  open 
face  of  Scripture.  .  .  . 

P.S.  —  If  sinners  have  no  ability  to  repent  what  must  they  do?  and 
wliat  must  we  tell  them  while  we  use  the  Bible  for  a  test-book  ?  .  .  .  Are 
sinners  who  are  totally  depraved,  i.e.,  destitute  of  holy  tastes,  destitute 
too  of  natural  ability  to  repent,  or  to  begin  to  be  holy?  No;  for  thousands 
of  them  have  repented,  and  found  that  they  had  natural  ability.  .  .  .  The 
sinner  if  not  the  child  of  fate,  or  a  brute  beast,  is  a  moral  agent,  and  able 
to  begin  to  repent,  as  all  the  commands  and  penalties  of  the  law,  and  all  the 
offers  and  promises  of  the  gospel,  invariably  presuppose.  If,  in  one  word, 
the  sinner  is  unable  to  repent  or  make  a  new  heart,  the  language  of  the 
Bible  is  absurd,  and  what  is  God,  and  what  is  accountability  but  a 
delusion  ? 

This  testimony  found  in  a  letter  written  in  the  very  year  and 
month  in  which  the  elder  Seminary  was  founded,  —  written  too  by 
a  man  who  was  second  to  no  one  in  that  noble  band  of  men  who, 
a  year  later  organized  the  present  Institution,  is  surely  significant 
of  their  own  interpretation  of  the  Creed-statement  now  before  us, 
and  of  the  momentous  importance  they  attached  to  the  Christian 
doctrine  which  that  statement  expresses. 

What  now  are  the  views  upon  this  subject  which  are  presented  in 
Progressive  Orthodoxy,  and  for  which  Prof.  Egbert  C.  Smyth  is 
responsible. 


44 

We  make  the  following  citations. 

It  might  be  enough  to  suggest,  at  this  point,  that  the  power  and  incli- 
nation to  repent  are  not  found  except  when  God  is  revealed  in  Christ:  that 
only  because  Christ  lias  brought  God  to  men  in  a  new  light  are  they  stirred 
to  penitence  [p.  47]. 

Christ's  power  to  represent  or  be  substituted  for  man  is  always  to  be  asso- 
ciated with  man's  power  to  repent.  The  possibility  of  redeeming  man  lies 
in  the  fact  that  although  he  is  by  act  and  inheritance  a  sinner,  yet  imder 
the  appropriate  influences  he  is  capable  of  repenting.  The  power  of 
repentance  remains,  and  to  this  power  the  gospel  addresses  itself.  Clirist 
suffering  and  sympathizing  with  men  is  able  to  awaken  in  them  and  express 
for  them  a  real  repentance.  It  is  to  this  power  that  Christ,  the  holy  and  mer- 
ciful, attaches  himself.  Realizing  it  in  some,  and  being  able  to  realize  it  in 
all,  He  represents  humanity  before  God.  Xow  the  power  of  repentance, 
whicli,  so  far  as  it  exists,  is  tlie  power  of  recuperation,  is  superior  to  the 
necessities  of  past  wrong-doing  and  of  present  habit.  It  is  the  one  fact 
which  can  never  be  estimated  for  what  it  may  do,  which  baffles  the  calcula- 
tion of  the  wisest  observers.  The  penitent  man,  so  far  as  he  really  repents, 
is  in  the  exercise  of  a  freedom  which  resists  and  almost  subjugates  tlie  forces 
of  evil.  In  union  with  Christ,  who  brings  spiritual  truth  and  power  to  man, 
repentance  is  radical.  Man  left  to  himself  cannot  have  a  repentance  wiiich 
sets  him  free  from  sin  and  death.  But  in  Christ  he  is  moved  to  repentance 
which  is  revolutionary;  in  Christ  he  can  express  repentance,  for  in  union 
with  Christ  he  adopts  the  feeling  of  Christ  concerning  sin  against  the  God 
of  love.  If  man  unaided  could  become  truly  repentant,  he  would  become 
holy,  and  would  be  the  child  of  God.  This  was  admitted  by  Jonathan 
Edwards.  But  it  is  only  in  Christ  that  lie  has  such  knowledge  of  God  and 
of  himself  as  is  necessary  to  a  repentance  which  is  revolutionary.  It  is  not 
true,  we  admit  and  insist,  that  repentance  without  Christ  is  availing  for 
redemption,  for  man  of  himself  cannot  repent:  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is 
not  true  that  Christ's  atonement  has  value  without  repentance.  Christ's 
sacrifice  avails  with  God  because  it  is  adapted  to  bring  man  to  repentance. 
This  gives  it  ethical  meaning  and  value.  He  is  one,  in  with  the  race, 
who  has  the  power  of  bringing  it  into  sympathy  with  his  own  feeling 
towards  God  and  towards  sin:  and  so  God  looks  on  the  race  as  having  this 
power  in  Christ,  a  power  which,  when  realized,  melts  away  the  iron  fetters 
of  what  we  call  necessity  and  fate  [pp.   54,  55,  56]. 

The  race  is  reconstituted  in  Christ,  and  Is  other  in  the  sight  of  God, 
because  different  in  fact,  because  containing  powers  for  repentance  and  holi- 
ness, which,  without  Christ,  it  would  be  hopelessly  destitute  of  [p.  56]. 

God  does  not  become  propitious  because  man  repents  and  amends,  for  that 
is  beyond  man's  power.  He  becomes  propitious  because  Christ,  laying  down 
his  life,  makes  the  race  to  its  worst  individual  capable  of  repenting,  obeying, 
trusting  [p.  58]. 

Now  we  affirm  that  these  declarations  of  the  Xew  Theology, 
upon  the  subject  of  man's  ability  to  obey  God,  squarely  antago- 
nize and  deny  the  declarations  of  the  Creed. 


■mmHi 


45 

1.  The  Creed  aflirms  that  raau  of  himself  has  real  and  full 
ability  to  do  all  that  God  requires  of  him,  and  therefore  has  real 
and  full  ability  to  repent.  But  the  New  Theologj'  affirms,  that 
"man  of  himself  cO'i^^^ot  rejient."  \_Prog.  Orth.  p.  55.]  The 
antagonism  thus  announced  is  clear  and  absolute. 

2.  The  Creed  atlirms  that  man  as  man.  man  in  his  constitutional 
faculties  and  natural  abilities,  has  full  power  to  obey  God,  and  of 
course  is  of  himself  capable  of  repenting  of  his  sins,  of  trusting  in 
and  obeying  God.  But  the  New  Theology  affirms  that  man  has  no 
such  power  and  no  such  capability,  save  as  he  is  brought  under 
certain  influences,  or  to  speak  more  specifically,  save  as  he  is  em- 
powered and  moved  by  the  suflferings  and  sympathies  of  Christ. 
One  statement  made  is  this:  "God  does  not  become  propitious 
because  man  repents  and  amends,  for  that  is  beyond  man's  power. 
He  becomes  propitious,  because  Christ,  laying  down  his  life,  makes 
the  race  to  its  worst  individual  capable  of  repenting,  obeying,  trust- 
ing." [Prog.  Orth.  p.  58.]  The  Creed  represents  that  to  re- 
pent aud  amend  is  within  man's  poicer.  The  New  Theology 
affirms  that  to  repent  aud  amend  is  beyond  man's  pov:er.  The 
Creed  declares  that  man  as  man,  man  as  originally  formed  and 
endowed  b}-  his  Creator  and  as  now  existing,  is  capable  of  repent- 
ing of  his  sins  and  trusting  in  C^od.  The  New  Theology  affirms 
that  man  has  this  capability  onbj  as  Christ  through  the  sacrifice  of 
himself  makes  him  capable.  Men  are  utterly  powerless  to  do  God's 
will  until  "  Christ  laying  down  his  life,  makes  the  race  to  its  icorst 
individual  capable  of  repenting,  obeying,  trusting."  Here  again 
the  antagonism  between  the  two  theologies  is  unqualified  aud 
intense. 

3.  The  Creed  affirms  that  sinful  man  has  real  and  complete 
power  to  repent  of  his  sins,  and  that  repentance  is  one  of  the 
"personal  requisites  in  the  gospel  scheme  of  salvation,"  that  is. 
is  one  of  the  prescribed  conditions  upon  the  fulfilment  of  which  the 
sinner  is  set  free  from  sin  and  death,  receiving  forgiveness  and  the 
life  everlasting  through  the  atoning  sacrifice  of  Christ.  The  New 
Theology  affirms  that.  ••  Man  left  to  himself  cannot  have  a  repent- 
ance which  sets  him  free  from  sin  and  death."  [Prog.  Orth.  p.  bb.'\ 
The  Creed  does  not  admit  that  repentance  avails  for  salvation 
without  Christ's  atonement,  but  it  does  affirm  that  man  of  himself 
can  repent,  can  trust,  and  can  do  whatever  God  requires  of  him, 
and  that  upon  his  doing  tliese  things  he  is  freed  from  sin  and  death 
b}'  God  himself :  not  through  magic,  but  through  the  vicarious  sac- 


46 

rifice  of  the  Lamb  of  God  "  slaiu  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world."  The  New  Theology  affirms  that  man  of  himself  cannot 
repent,  cannot  trust,  and  so  cannot  of  himself  do  those  things 
which  God  requires  him  to  do,  and  which  he  must  do  in  order  that 
he  may  be  saved  through  Christ.  On  this  point  also  the  two  the- 
ologies are  irreconcilably  antagonistic  the  one  to  the  other. 

4.  The  Creed  represents  that  sinful  man  has  in  himself  not  only 
poicer,  but  also  motive,  to  repent.  His  understanding  of  his  sius 
is  a  motive  to  repentance.  Even  if  he  is  without  the  written  law 
of  God,  the  law  is  lettered  on  his  heart,  and  he  knows  the  works 
which  are  required  of  him.  He  does  not  sin  without  knowing  his 
guilt.  He  is  so  made  that  he  cannot  but  know  it.  And  all  this 
knowledge  presses  him  to  turn  from  his  sin.  His  own  conscience, 
memory  and  reason  plead  with  him  to  repent.  The  sense  of  ill- 
desert,  some  vision  of  righteousness  and  of  its  rewards,  conscious- 
ness of  present  condemnation  under  law,  fear,  forebodings,  and 
even  remorse  —  all  these  things  are  motives  urging  him  to  repent- 
ance ;  and  under  them  he  can  repent  if  he  will.  If  he  does  not,  it 
is  because  he  icill  not.  He  is  without  excuse,  and  his  impenitence 
is  a  sill.  If  the  Holy  Spirit  moves  upon  him,  and  Christ  comes  to 
him  in  the  gospel,  they  come  not  to  give  him  one  new  faculty  or 
power,  or  any  new  ability  whatever  to  repent,  but  simpl}'  to  remove 
his  univillingness.  They  present,  indeed,  new  motives,  —  motives 
of  transcendent  reach  and  power,  —  but  they  do  not  coufer  the 
least  natural  or  real  ability  to  repent.  The  only  obstacle  they  seek 
to  remove  is  the  sinner's  aversion  to  repentance  and  holiness,  for, 
according  to  the  Creed,  this  is  the  only  obstacle  to  the  sinner's  sal- 
vation. All  these  interpositions  of  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
are  of  grace.  They  are  not  due  to  the  sinner.  He  cannot  demand 
them  as  his  right.  They  constitute  the  undeserved  redemption  that 
comes  of  God's  infinite  and  gracious  compassion.  Such  is  the 
theology  of  the  Creed. 

But  the  New  Theology  affirms,  that  sinful  man  has  neither  j^ouser 
nor  inclination  to  repent,  save  as  he  is  empowered  and  moved  b>j 
forces  and  motives  from  loithout  himself.  It  is  stated  \_Progressive 
Orthodoxy,  p.  47],  "  that  the  jw^cer  and  inclination  to  repent  are 
not  found  except  when  God  is  revealed  in  Christ ;  that  only  be- 
cause Christ  has  brought  God  to  men  in  a  new  light  are  they 
stirred  to  repentance."  According  to  this  view,  the  sinner  has 
not  onh'  no  inclination,  or  willingness,  but  no  j)on^er,  to  repent, 
until  God  is  revealed  to  him  in  Christ.     Therefore,  if  he  does  not 


know  God  iu  Christ,  he  is  under  no  obligation  to  repent,  and  im- 
penitence with  him  is  not  a  sin.  Moreover,  if  God  requires  him  to 
repent,  as  he  does.  He  is  bound  to  give  to  him,  as  his  due.  the 
power  to  repent.  But  He  gives  this  power,  according  to  the  New 
Theology,  by  giving  his  Son  that  he  may,  by  the  incarnation,  come 
into  organic  and  vital  relation  to  the  race.  The  Son.  by  coming 
into  union  with  the  race  and  revealing  the  Father,  imparts  the 
power  to  repent.  But  if  man  is  utterly  unable  to  repent,  and  yet 
is  required  of  God  to  repent,  the  bestowal  of  the  power  to  meet  the 
requirement  is  due  to  man,  and  God  by  giving  his  Son  to  impart 
this  power  to  him  was  simply  meeting  an  obligation.  Therefore 
the  gift  of  his  Son  was  not  of  grace  but  of  debt.  How  abhorrent 
all  this  is  to  the  Theology  which  Andover  Seminary  was  founded 
to  teach  is  made  evident  by  the  single  emphatic  statement  of  the 
Creed,  '"that  our  salvation  is  idiolhj  of  grace." 

5^.  The  Creed  affirms,  that  ''nothing  but  the  sinner's  aversion 
to  holiness  prevents  his  salvation."  This  declaration  is  made  in 
connection  with  the  statement  of  man's  ability  to  obey  God  in  all 
things,  and  as  legitimately  following  that  statement.  '-Man  has 
understanding  and  corporeal  strength  to  do  all  that  God  requires 
of  him  ;  so  that  nothing^  but  the  sinner's  aversion  to  holiness,  pre- 
vents his  salvation." 

But  the  New  Theology  teaches,  that  the  sinner's  "aversion  to 
holiness  "  is  not  the  only  thing  that  prevents  his  salvation.  His  real 
and  utter  powerlessness  to  repent,  prevents  his  salvation.  And  as 
the  needed  power  can  be  imparted  to  him  only  through  his  knowing 
God  in  Christ,  it  follows  that  if  he  does  not  thus  know  him.  the  lack 
of  that  knoioledge  makes  repentance  on  his  part  impossible,  and  so 
prevents  his  salvation.  If  the  literal  statement  that  "the  power 
and  inclination  to  repent  are  not  found  except  when  God  is  re- 
vealed in  Christ."  and  other  statements  of  similar  import,  are  to 
be  insisted  upon,  then  none  of  the  race  who  lived  before  Christ 
had  power  to  re^^ent,  for  to  none  of  them  was  God  revealed  in 
Christ.  Moreover  by  far  the  larger  part  of  the  race  who  have 
lived  since  Christ,  including  we  know  not  how  large  a  numlier  who. 
though  living  in  Christendom,  have  had  no  adequate  knowledge  of 
God  in  Christ,  have  been  equally  powerless  to  repent.  xVccording 
to  the  teachings  of  Progressive  Orthodox)/,  the  salvation  of  all 
those  uncounted  millions  has  been  prevented,  not  simply  by  their 
aversion  to  holiness,  but  l>ecause  they  had  ?«o  j)Ou:er  to  repent. 
And  having  no  power  to  repent,  thej'  were  not  to  be  blamed  for 


48 

not  repenting.  Their  impenitence  was  no  sin.  Who  icas  to  bkime 
for  their  impenitence,  and  for  their  dying  in  sin  ?  Here  is  created 
a  needless  imputation  against  God,  —  and  what  for?  —  in  order  to 
compel  the  inference  that  God  must  give  them  the  power  and 
opportunity  to  repent  in  Hades. 

But  the  Andover  Creed  says  of  every  sinner,  who  has  lived  on 
the  face  of  the  earth  and  gone  down  to  death  impenitent  for  his 
sins,  that  nothing  hut  his  oioa  aversion  to  holiness  has  jjvecented 
his  salvation.  He  alone  was  responsible  for  his  impenitence,  and 
God  was  just.  Thus,  the  Andover  Creed  gives  a  true  and  Scri})- 
tural  Theodicy,  while  Progressive  Orthodoxy  breaks  down  utterly 
in  its  attempted  speculative  Theodicy.  And  the  New  Tlieology  is 
found  again  to  be  in  direct  and  irreconcilable  conflict  with  that 
which  the  Seminary  was  foimded  to  maintain.  The  two  can  never 
be  believed  and  taught  by  the  same  man. 

6.  The  Andover  Creed  teaches  that  man  of  himself,  man  as 
constituted  by  his  Creator,  has  complete  power  to  repent  of  his 
sins,  and  that  his  repentance  will  be  an  accepted  and  effectual  con- 
dition of  his  salvation  from  sin  and  death  through  the  redeeming 
grace  of  CTod  in  Christ. 

But  Progressive  Orthodoxy  teaches,  that  man  cannot  truly  re- 
pent, save  as  he  not  only  knows  Christ,  but  also  is  "'•in  Christ." 
Xo  repentance  of  his  can  be  radical  and  revolutionar}',  or  of  any 
avail  in  the  line  of  his  salvation,  unless  he  is  ^' in  Christ,"  ''■in 
union  with  Christ."  The  teaching  on  this  point  is  as  follows 
[p.  55]  :  — 

In  union  v:ifh  Christ,  who  brings  spiritual  truth  and  power  to  man.  re- 
pentance is  radical.  Man  left  to  himself  cannot  have  a  repentance  which 
sets  him  free  from  sin  and  death.  But  la  Christ  he  is  moved  to  repentance 
which  is  revolutionarj";  in  Christ  he  can  express  repentance,  for  in  union 
with  Christ  he  adopts  the  feeling  of  Christ  concerning  sin  against  the  God  of 
love.  If  man  unaided  could  become  truly  repentant,  he  would  become  holy, 
and  would  be  the  child  of  God.  .  .  .  But  it  is  only  in  Christ  that  he  has  such 
knowledge  of  God  and  of  himself  as  is  necessary  to  a  repentance  which  is 
revolutionary.     [Italics  ours.] 

But  what  is  meant  by  the  phrases,  '^  in  Christ,"  "  in  union  with 
Christ"?  Are  these  expressions  used  in  their  Scriptural  and 
usual  sense?  Does  the  phrase,  '"iu  Christ"  mean  what  Paul 
meant  by  it,  when  he  said,  ••  If  any  man  be  in  Christ  he  is  a  new 
creature."  ''There  is  therefore  now  no  condemnation  to  them 
which  are  in  Christ  Jesus"  ?     If  so,  then  Progressive  Orthodoxy 


49 

is  teaching  that  man  must  be  "a  new  creature"  before  he  can 
repent ;  must  be  forgiven,  regenerated,  justified  and  savcnl  from 
his  sins,  before  he  can  repent  of  tliem  :  must  be  a  Christian,  be- 
fore he  can  repent,  or  can  even  be  mo  red  to  repentance.  Doubt- 
less this  is  not  esactl}'  what  the  writer  means.  Yet  it  is  what 
he  sai/s,  and  it  is  difficult  to  see,  how  it  can  be  right  to  use  familiar 
and  sacred  phraseology  out  of  its  ordinary  sense  without  frank 
and  full  explanation.  The  passage  just  quoted  is  vague  and 
mystical.  But  what  is  under  the  mysticism?  The  true  inter- 
pretation is  suggested,  but  not  declared,  in  the  following  brief 
statements  found  in  the  same  article  from  which  we  have  been 
making  quotations,  and,  for  the  most  part,  in  close  connection  with 
those  quotations. 

So  we  have  become  accustomed  to  the  thought  that  Christ  has  an  organic 
relation  to  the  race.  He  is  an  individual,  but  an  individual  vitall)/  related 
to  every  human  being.  He  preferred  to  be  called  the  Son  of  Man.  Paul 
sees  in  Him  the  Head  of  humanity,  the  Second  Adam.     [Prog.  Ortk.  p.  52.] 

He  [Christ]  is  one,  in  i':itli  the  race,  who  has  the  poicer  of  bringing  it  into 
sympathy  with  his  own  feeling  towards  God  and  towards  sin;  and  so  God 
looks  on  the  race  as  having  this  power  in  Christ  [55-.56]. 

This  Christ  i?i  with  the  race  is  regarded  by  God  as  one  who  has  those 
powers  of  instruction,  sympathy,  pmity  which  can  be  imparted  to  his 
brethren.  Likewise  the  individual  in  Christ  takes  the  place  of  the  indi- 
vidual without  Christ,  is  looked  on  as  one  whom  Christ  can  bring  to  repent- 
ance and  obedience,  and  so  is  justified  ecen  before  faith  develops  into  charac- 
ter [p.  .50]. 

The  race  is  reconstituted  in  Christ,  and  is  other  in  the  sight  of  God, 
because  different  in  fact,  because  containing  poicers  for  repentance  and 
holiness  which,  without  Christ,  it  would  be  hopelessly  destitute  of  [p.  56]. 

God  does  not  beconie  propitious  because  man  repents  and  amends,  for 
that  is  beyond  man's  power.  He  becomes  propitious  because  Christ,  laying 
down  his  life,  makes  the  race  to  its  worst  individual  capable  of  repenting, 
obeying,  trusting  [p.  .58]. 

The  theory,  sufficiently  set  forth  in  these  extracts,  is  that  of  the 
universal  Headship  of  Christ  in  the  human  race.  According  to 
this  theory,  Christ  is  the  Head  not  simply  of  the  church,  which  is 
his  body,  but  of  the  entire  human  race.  He  is  the  second  Adam. 
Not  simply  believers,  but  all  human  l>eings,  are  organically  and 
vitally  related  to  him.  No  man  is  separate  from  him.  Mankind, 
from  Adam  to  the  last  child  born  on  earth,  is  in  union  loith  Christ. 

The  Son  of  Gotl  comes  into  humanity,  and  the  race,  by  a  mysti- 
cal union,  is  made  one  with  him.  The  union  is  as  I'eal  as  that  of 
the  human  bodv  with  its  head.     Everv  member  of  the  race  is  as 


60 

trulj"  united  to  Christ,  as  every  member  of  the  human  body  is 
united  to  the  head  of  the  body.  Such  is  the  doctrine.  It  is  not 
simply  a  theory,  but  is  set  forth  as  a  cardinal  belief.  It  will  prob- 
ably be  found  to  be  the  germ  and  root  of  this  whole  system  of  New 
Theology.  It  constructs  and  vitalizes  all  the  other  doctrines  of 
Progressive  Orthodoxy.  Notice  its  relation  to  the  new  doctrine  of 
repentance.  Man  of  himself  cannot  repent.  He  is  as  impotent 
to  do  this  as  is  a  piece  of  wood.  But  Christ  appears,  becomes  the 
Head  of  the  race ;  and  the  race  is  reconstructed  in  Him.  Every 
man  is  brought  into  organic  and  vital  union  with  Him,  and  in  this 
xiiiion  receives  power  to  repent.  Christ  imparts  this  power.  He 
'■'■makes  the  race  to  its  worst  individual  capable  of  repenting." 
The  race  now  contains  '"•  pou-ers  for  repentance  and  holiness,  which, 
without  Christ,  it  would  be  hopelessly  destitute  of."  It  is  repre- 
sented, that  Christ  "  realizing  "  this  power  "  in  some,"  is  "  able  to 
realize  it  in  all."  "The  entire  race  repents  or  is  capable  of 
repenting  through  Christ."  \_Prog.  Ortli.  p.  54. J  And  this  im- 
parted power  of  repentance,  it  is  claimed,  is  mighty  bej'ond  all 
estimate.  It  is  declared  to  bo'  ''  the  power  of  recuperation," 
and  to  be  '"  superior  to  the  necessities  of  past  wrong-doing  and 
of  present  habit."  \_Prog.  Orth.  p.  55.]  The  repentance  thus 
secured,  it  is  affirmed,  is  radical  and  revolutionary,  the  only  true 
repentance. 

Before  calling  your  attention  to  the  relation  of  this  theory,  of 
the  universal  Headship  of  Christ  in  the  human  race,  to  the  Andover 
Creed,  it  is  needful  to  raise  distinctly  the  question  ;  Has  man,  even 
when  organicallj'  and  vitally  related  to  Christ,  power  to  repent, 
unless  he  has  knowledge  of  Christ,  and  of  God  in  Christ?  How 
does  the  New  Theology  answer  this  question  ? 

We  call  your  attention  to  two  sample  statements  in  Progressive 
Orthodoxy.  On  page  47,  it  is  declared,  "that  the  power  and 
inclination  to  repent  are  not  found  except  when  God  is  revealed  in 
Christ."  On  page  56,  it  is  declared,  that  "The  race  is  reconsti- 
tuted in  Christ ;  and  is  other  in  the  sight  of  God.  because  different 
in  fact,  because  containing  poicers  for  repentance  and  holiness 
which  without  Clirist,  it  would  l)e  hopelessly  destitute  of."  In  the 
first  passage,  it  is  distinctly  affirmed,  that  the  power  to  repent  is 
III  it  found  except  when  God  is  known  in  Christ.  In  the  second 
passage,  with  equal  distinctness,  it  is  affirmed,  that  the  race  has 
power  to  repent  by  virtue  of  liaviug  been  reconstituteil  iu  Cl;rist. 


51 

All  men  have  power  for  repentance,  of  which  they  would  be  hope- 
lessly destitute  but  for  their  vital  relation  to  their  incarnate  Lord. 
These  two  statements,  on  the  face  of  them,  are  in  direct  conflict, 
the  one  affirming  that  the  power  to  repent  is  never  found  in  a  man 
who  does  not  know  Christ :  the  other  affirming,  that  every  man, 
whether  he  knows  Christ  or  not.  has  pov:er  to  repent  by  virtue  of 
belono-ing  to  the  race  as  reconstituted  in  Christ.  How  are  these 
conflicting  statements  to  be  reconciled  ?  A  possible  —  perhaps  the 
probable  —  explanation  is  this  :  The  idea  in  the  first  passage  may 
be,  that  the  power  to  repent  is  '■  not  found  "  in  the  soul,  that  it  is 
not  apparent,  is  not  brought  into  exercise,  or  realized,  except  when 
Christ  is  known.  The  ix)wer  is  there,  but  is  latent,  inojyeratice, 
and  cannot  be  brought  into  exercise  until  Christ  is  revealed.  The 
meaning  of  the  second  passage  evidently  is,  that  the  race  —  and  so 
every  man  in  it  —  receives  this  dormant  and  unrealized  power  to  re- 
pent through  union  with  the  incarnate  Christ.  Indeed,  that  the 
two  statements  are  thus  to  be  harmonized  is  made  quite  evident  by 
a  passage  on  page  54,  where  it  is  represented  that  man  ••  under  the 
appropriate  influences  "  is  ''  capable  of  repenting."  He  cannot  re- 
pent, save  as  he  is  influenced  from  without,  and  in  a  particular 
way.  He  has  a  latent,  slumbering  power  to  repent,  yet  it  is  utterly 
worthless  to  him  until  Christ  is  known.  Thus  he  has  power,  and 
at  the  same  time  has  not  ix)wer.  to  rei^ent.  It  is  a  power  that  can 
never  be  realized  or  made  actual  by  any  sinner,  until  he  has  knowl- 
edge of  the  Lord  in  his  earthly  life,  the  historic  Christ.  It  is 
doubtless  to  this  latent  and  inoperative  power  in  men.  that  refer- 
ence is  made,  on  p.  54,  in  the  declaration,  that  "The  power  of 
repentance  remains,  and  to  this  power  the  gospel  addresses  itself. 
Christ  suffering  and  sympathizing  with  men  is  able  to  awaken  in 
thera  and  express  for  them  a  real  repentance.  It  is  to  this  power 
that  Christ,  the  holy  and  the  merciful,  attaches  himself.  Realiz- 
ing it  in  some,  and  being  able  to  realize  it  in  all,  He  represents 
humanity  before  God." 

The  teaching  of  the  New  Theology,  therefore,  on  the  subject 
now  before  us.  appears  to  be  :  First,  that  man  as  now  constituted, 
has  no  power  of  any  kind  to  repent ;  Secondly,  that  as  reconsti- 
tuted, in  common  with  the  race,  through  the  Incarnation  of  Christ, 
he  receives  power  to  repent,  which  abides  in  him.  which  yet  is 
utterly  useless  —  a  powerless  power — until  Christ  is  known  to 
him.  Thirdly,  that  onJ>/  when  Christ  is  known  to  man.  can  the 
latter  have  any  actual  or  realized  power  to  repent.     This  knowl- 


52 

edge  is  the  one  supreme  necessity.  Neither  Christ  himself,  nor  the 
Holy  Spirit,  nor  any  other  power,  human  or  divine,  can  bring  a 
single  sinner  to  repentance  except  through  the  sinner's  own  knowl- 
edge of  Christ.  Through  this  knowledge,  and  only  through  this 
knowledge,  Christ,  and  only  Christ,  realizes  in  sinful  men  the 
power  to  repent.  He,  we  are  told,  does  realize  it  in  some,  and  is 
able  to  realize  it  in  all. 

What  now  is  the  relation  of  this  theory  of  repentance  through 
organic  union  with  Christ,  to  the  doctrine  required  to  be  taught  at 
Andover  ? 

1.  This  New  Departure  theory  of  Christ's  universal  Headship 
flatly  denies  the  statement  of  the  Andover  Creed.  That  Creed 
affirms  that  man,  as  already  constituted,  has  real  and  complete 
power  to  repent.  The  New  Theology  affirms,  that  man  of  himself 
cannot  repent,  that,  only  as  he  is  reconstituted  in  Christ,  has  he  any 
powers  for  repentance  and  holiness. 

2.  The  plain,  common-sense  and  Scriptural  doctrine  of  the 
Creed,  that  man  has  natural  ability  to  do  all  that  God  requires  of 
him,  is  supplanted  by  the  vague,  dreamy  and  utterly  unscriptural 
theor}',  that  Christ  through  his  Incarnation,  is  organically  and 
vitally  united  to  every  man,  and  in  that  mystical  union  imparts  to 
every  man  a  dormant  and  useless  power  to  repent. 

3.  The  doctrine  of  the  Creed  is,  that  man  has,  in  his  own  con- 
stitution and  in  the  working  of  his  constitutional  powers,  both  the 
ability  and  the  motive  to  repent.  The  teaching  of  the  New  The- 
ology is,  that  the  sinner,  though  organically  and  vitally  united  to 
the  incarnate  Christ,  has  no  available  power,  and,  of  course,  can 
be  subject  to  no  motive,  to  repent,  until  Christ  is  known  to  him. 

4.  The  violent  antagonism  of  this  new  theory  of  repentance  to 
the  theology  required  at  Andover  is  indicated  by  the  kind  of  preach- 
ing which  it  legitimately  inspires.  A  clergyman's  theology,  if  he 
is  true  to  himself,  will  determine  the  substance  and  type  of  his 
preaching.  How  is  the  alleged  truth  of  Christ's  vital  and  univer- 
sal union  with  men,  and  the  consequent  impartation  to  them  of 
powers  for  repentance  and  holiness,  to  be  preached?  The  preacher 
must  say  to  men.  to  even  the  worst  man  ;  "  You  are  reconstituted 
in  Christ.  Christ  is  in  organic  and  vital  union  with  you,  and  you 
with  Him.  In  this  union  you  have  powers  for  repentance  and  holi- 
ness, of  which  5'ou  would  otherwise  be  hopelessl}'  destitute.  You 
are  '  in  Christ '  and  Christ  is  in  you.  From  your  birth  Christ  has 
been  organically  and  vitally  related  to  you.  and  you  to  Him.     But 


53 

you  have  had  no  knowledge  of  this.  You  have  not  known  the 
Christ  in  you,  and  consequently  have  not  known  Christ  as  He  is. 
Yet  this  very  knowledge  is  essential  to  any  realized  ability  on  your 
part  to  obey  God  in  Christ.  Thus  you  have  had  no  available  power 
to  repent.  Therefore  no  blame  rests  upon  you  for  your  impeni- 
tence. Your  impenitence  has  not  been  a  sin.  But  now  that  you 
know  Christ  as  he  is,  true  repentance  is  possible  to  you.  In  union 
with  Christ,  you  can  have  a  repentance  that  is  radical  and  revolu- 
tionary. Look,  then,  to  the  Christ  in  you,  who  can  move  you, 
realize  in  you,  and  express  for  you,  a  repentance  which  shall  set 
you  free  from  sin  and  death." 

"You  are  also  required  to  '  come  to  Christ.'  But  how  can  you 
come  to  Christ?  Come  to  yourself,  to  your  better  self ,  for  your 
better  self  is  Christ  in  you.  You  ought  to  be  a  Christian.  Do  you 
ask  how  you  can  become  a  Christian?  Be  yourself,  your  true  self, 
and  more  and  more  be  your  true  self  ;  for  your  true  self  is  the  Christ 
in  you.  Jesus  said,  '  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see 
the  kingdom  of  God.'  But  how  can  you  come  into  the  experience 
of  that  new  birth?  Build  upon  the  best  that  is  in  you,  for  the  best 
that  is  in  you  is  Christ.  Know  that  when  j'ou  were  born  in  to  this 
world  you  were  born  into  Christ,  and  ever  since  your  natural  birth 
you  have  been  in  organic  union  with  him,  a  member  of  his  body 
—  for  Christ  is  the  Head  of  every  man." 

In  describing  this  preaching,  we  are  not  drawing  from  our  fancy 
or  imagination.  Young  men  under  the  teachings  of  the  New  The- 
ology are  in  training  to  preach  what  they  have  been  taught.  They 
will  preach  it.  Already  there  are  indications  that  this  is  to  be  the 
new  style  of  preaching.  It  is  another  gospel  that  is  thus  set  forth, 
yet  not  another.  Is  there  any  need  of  saying,  that  such  preaching 
can  never  be  inspired  by  a  belief  in  the  Andover  Creed,  or  in  any 
other  evangelical  Creed  in  Christendom? 

5.  The  notion  of  the  universal  Headship  of  Christ  in  the  human 
race,  out  of  which  comes  the  New  Departure  theory  of  repentance, 
is  opposed  to  numerous  statements,  and  to  the  whole  spirit  and 
drift,  of  the  Andover  Creed,  for  its  logical,  inevital)le  and  speedy 
result  is  Universalism.  If  the  race  is  reconstituted  in  Christ,  if 
throuiih  the  Incarnation  every  man  is  brought  into  vital  union  with 
the  incarnate  and  now  glorified  Lord,  how  can  any  man  be  lost?  If 
a  man  is  in  Christ  and  Christ  in  him.  can  that  man  perish?  And  if 
all  men  are  thus  organically  related  to  Christ,  can  any  man  perish? 
If  Christ,  in  the  meaning  of  this  theory,  is  the  Head  of  the  race. 


54 

the  race  is  his  body,  and  can  any  member  of  the  body  of  Christ 
l)erish !  The  teachers  of  the  New  Theology  believe,  that,  Christ 
being  in  this  vital  union  with  ever}'  man.  it  is  reasonable  to  infer 
that  every  man  will  sometime,  —  if  not  in  this  world,  then  in  Hades, 
have  knowledge  of  Christ,  with  abundant  opportunity  to  repent. 
But  it  is  equally  reasonable  to  infer  from  the  same  premise,  that 
every  man  will  be  saved.  Organic  and  vital  union  with  Christ  is 
salvation.  And  as  no  man  is  "separate"  from  Christ  \^Prog. 
Orth.  p.  66]  all  men  are  saved. 

We  are  aware  that  Professor  Smyth  denies  now  that  he  believes 
in  universal  salvation.  But  how  long  will  be  deny  it?  It  is  no 
uncommon  thing  for  men  to  adopt  new  beliefs,  and  yet  deny,  at 
first,  the  implications  that  legitimately  and  practically  go  with 
them.  But  when  theological  teachers  do  this,  usually  their  stu- 
dents outrun  them,  and  adopt  tvitJi  the  new  beliefs  all  the  natural 
implications  and  inferences.  A  Statute  of  the  Seminary  requires 
the  Professor  to  ojjpose  Universalism,  and  he  has  promised  to  do 
so.  But  to  bold  and  teach  beliefs  which  lead  to  Universalism  is  not 
to  oppose,  but  to  encourage,  that  error,  and  is  a  violation  of  the 
Statute. 

IV.  Our  sixth  complaint  is,  that  Professor  Smyth  holds,  maintains 
and  inculcates :  That  the  atonement  of  Christ  consists  essentially  and 
chiefly  in  his  becoming  identified  ivith  the  human  race  through  his  In- 
carnation, in  order  that,  by  his  union  v:ith  men  he  might  endow  them 
v:ith  the  2^ov:er  to  repent,  and  thus  impart  to  them  an  augmented  value 
in  the  view  of  God,  and  so  render  God  propitious  toicards  them. 

Every  Professor  in  subscribing  to  the  Andover  Creed  makes  this 
declaration : 

I  believe  .  .  .  that  Christ,  as  our  Redeemer,  executeth  the  office  of  a 
Prophet,  Priest,  and  King;  that  agreeably  to  the  covenant  of  redemption, 
the  Son  of  God,  and  he  alone,  by  his  sufferings  and  death,  has  made  atone- 
ment for  the  sins  of  all  men;  that  repentance,  faith,  and  holiness  are  the 
personal  reqnisites  in  the  Gospel  scheme  of  salvation:  that  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  is  the  only  ground  of  a  sinner's  justification:  that  this  right- 
eousness is  received  through  faith;  and  that  this  faith  is  the  gift  of  God;  so 
that  our  salvation  is  wholly  of  grace. 

The  portion  of  the  Creed  now  cited  obviously  includes  the  fol- 
lowing statements  of  doctrine  :  —  not  of  opiuiou.  but  of  doctrine. 


55 

1.  That  Christ,  as  our  Redeemer,  took  uix)n  himself  the  office 
of  priest,  and  in  that  priestly  office  oflfered  himself  as  a  sacrifice  for 
sin. 

2.  That  it  was  in  accordance  with  a  divine  arrangement,  or  de- 
termination, called  the  Covenant  of  Redemption,  that  the  Son  of 
God  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  men. 

3.  That  the  Son  of  God  made  this  atonement  by  his  srijferings 
and  death.  The  statement  is  not  that  He  made  atonement  by  his 
incarnation,  or  by  his  whole  life  of  humiliation  ;  nor  by  the  sacri- 
fice He  made  in  coming,  through  his  humanity,  into  close  and  dis- 
agreeable contact  with  sinful  men  ;  but  that  He  made  atonement 
specifically  by  his  sufferings  and  death.  The  Creed  empha-sizes  the 
fact  that  the  atoning  work  of  Christ  was  achieved  in  the  final  and 
priestly  offering  of  himself  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  It  descriljes  the 
atonement  as  wrought  essentially  and  chiefly  in  his  death.  It 
glorifies  the  cross. 

4.  That  Christ  alone  made  the  atonement.  The  fact  that  Christ 
was  the  sole  author  of  this  saving  work  is  stated  with  special  dis- 
tinctness. The  language  is  ;  "  The  Son  of  God,  and  He  alone,  by 
his  sufferings  and  death,  has  made  atonement  "  for  sins.  No  other 
being  or  beings  were  united  to  him,  or  identified  with  him  in  that 
stupendous  sacrifice.  No  man  or  angel  took  part  in  it.  Separate 
and  alone  his  soul  was  made  an  offering  for  sin. 

5.  That  the  Son  of  God  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all  men. 
But  while  the  atonement  is  thus  declared  to  be  universal,  it  is 
stated  elsewhere  in  this  same  Creed,  that  God  "  from  all  eternity 
elected  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  that  He  entered  into  a  cove- 
nant of  grace,  to  deliver  them  out  of  this  state  of  sin  and  misery 
by  a  Redeemer."  The  complete  statement  of  the  Creed,  then,  is, 
that  while  Christ  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  the  entire  race, 
He  actually  redeems  and  saves  only  those  who  are  chosen  of  God. 

6.  That  the  atonement,  made  by  the  Son  of  God,  and  by  him 
alone,  in  his  sufferings  and  death,  was  a  vicarious  atonement.  It 
was  made  "for  the  sins"  of  men,  and  therefore  for  sinful  men 
themselves. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Creed  is,  that  Christ  took  our  place,  and, 
as  the  Son  of  God,  and  our  High  Priest,  endured  immeasurable 
grief  and  pain  in  our  stead.  He  offered  himself  a  substitute  for 
guilty  and  condemned  men,  and  offered  his  sufferings  as  an 
eijuicalent  for  the  penal  sufferings  threatened  of  God's  holy  law 
against  sinners.     It  was  not  icith  smuers,  but  fur  them,  that  he 


56 

suffered  in  his  death.  It  was  not  in  organic  union  ii'ith  them, 
but  in  their  stead,  that  He  was  sacrificed  on  the  cross.  The  race 
was  not  loith  him  in  making  the  atonement.  He  alone  made  it.  The 
race,  having  Christ  in  it,  was  not  a  substitute  for  itself.  Christ 
aIo7ie  was  a  substitute  for  the  race.  Apart  and  alone  he  stood  in 
his  priestly  atoning  sacrifice.  No  human  being,  no  angel,  was 
identified  with  him,  or  in  vital  union  with  him,  as  i)c  him,  in  his 
passion  and  death.  Such  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Creed.  Nothing 
can  be  more  explicit  than  its  two  statements,  that  "  The  Son  of 
God,  and  He  alone,"  made  atonement,  and  that  He  made  atone- 
ment "/or  all  men,"  — not  icith  all  men,  —  not  in  them,  but  ajmrt 
from  them,  and  for  them.  And  his  sufferings  and  death  avail 
with  God,  not  because  they  give  sinners  new  capacities,  and  make 
them  of  more  consequence  in  the  sight  of  God,  but  because  they 
were  endured /or  sinners,  and  can  be  righteously  accepted  of  God 
as  a  substitute  for  the  punishment  which  they  deserve. 

7.  The  declaration  of  the  Creed  includes  the  statement,  that 
"  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  the  only  ground  of  a  sinner's  justi- 
fication." The  "righteousness  of  Christ"  was  "his  obedience 
unto  death."  [Prof.  Park  on  The  Associate  Creed,  p.  35.] 
The  doctrine  stated  here  is,  that  God  cannot  maintain  his  justice 
and  holiness  in  justifying  and  saving  sinners,  except  on  the  ground 
of  or  because  of,  Christ's  obedience  unto  death.  That  obedience, 
or  righteousness,  was  his  atoning  sacrifice,  in  which  He  offered 
liimself  a  substitute  for  sinners,  and  his  sufferings  and  death  as 
an  equivalent  for  the  punitive  sufferings  which  sinners  deserve. 
Christ's  obedience  unto  death  availed  with  God,  not  because  it 
made  men  more  powerful  and  of  more  worth  in  his  sight,  but 
because  it  made  it  possible  for  God  consistently  and  righteously  to 
justify  sinners,  — possi5/e  for  him  to  remit  their  sins  and  raise 
them  to  glory  without  any  stain  upon  his  own  holiness,  or  any 
breaking  down  of  his  own  justice,  or  of  the  authority  of  his  holy 
law. 

8.  The  declaration  of  tlie  Creed  includes  the  statement,  that 
"  penitence,  faith  and  holiness  are  the  personal  requisites  in  the 
Gospel  scheme  of  salvation."  That  is,  these  are  the  condiitons 
to  be  fulfilled  by  siuuers,  in  order  that  they  may  be  redeemed  from 
sin  and  death,  through  the  atoning  sacrifice,  of  Christ.  As  sinful 
men,  on  account  of  their  aversion  to  holiness,  idll  not  penitently 
believe  either  in  this  atoning  sacrifice,  or  in  him  who  offered  it, 
God  graciously  gives  the  convicting  and  regenerating  influences  of 


67 

his  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  pleading  words  and  love  of  Christ  to  make 
them  ivilling  to  believe.  Thus  faith  is  the  gift  of  God,  and  our  salva- 
tion is  not,  in  anv  degree,  due  to  ourselves,  but  is  ivholly  of  grace. 
These  several  statements  and  interpretations,  we  think,  present 
the  obvious  and  true  meaning  of  that  portion  of  the  Creed  now 
before  us.  But  we  do  not  ask  you  to  take  our  word  for  the  cor- 
rectness of  our  interpretation.  No  man  living  has  had  better 
opportunities  to  learn  the  meaning  which  the  Founders  themselves 
attached  to  their  own  Symbol  of  Faith,  or  has  given  to  that 
Symbol  a  more  painstaking  and  exhaustive  examination,  than 
Professor  E.  A.  Park,  D.D.  "We  ask  j'our  careful  attention  to  his 
comments  upon  those  passages  which  express  the  views  of  the 
Founders  upon  the  great  doctrine  of  the  Atonement.  "We  quote 
from  Professor  Park's  treatise,  entitled,  "The  Associate  Creed 
of  Andover  Theological  Seminary"  [p.  35].  Speaking  of  this 
famous  Symbol,  he  says  : 

It  overflows  with  riches  on  the  most  precious  doctrine,  for  the  mainten- 
ance of  whifli  the  Seminarj-  was  instituted.  It  has  a  deep  meaning  when  it 
omits  all  reference  to  "  the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  us,"'  and  when 
it  omits  all  reference  to  some  of  the  high  Ilopkinsian  views  in  regard  to  the 
atonement.  It  nllotr.s  various  principles  which  it  does  not  require.  But  it 
does  not  allow  a  single  one  of  the  errors  of  the  "  new  departure."  It  forhids 
them  all.  In  the  most  moderate  interpretation  of  its  words,  as  explained 
by  its  framers,  it  requires  a  belief  in  the  following  principles:  The  God- 
man  is  our  priest,  our  royal  priest,  our  royal  prophet-priest.  In  this  royal 
priestly  otHce  he  offers  the  sacrifice  for  sin.  This  sacrifice,  in  its  very  nature, 
involves  the  ilea  of  his  death  and  sufferings,  all  of  which  represent  the  legal 
penalty  for  sin,  and  are,  for  the  purposes  of  moral  government,  of  equal 
avail  with  that  penalty.  The  pains  and  death  of  the  Lamb  of  God  were 
designed  to  vindicate  the  honor  of  God's  law,  and  of  his  retributive  justice, 
as  nmch  as  it  would  have  been  vindicated  by  inflicting  the  legal  penalty  on 
the  penitent;  this  is  the  nature  of  his  sacrifice.  Our  High  Triest's  right- 
eousness, that  is,  his  obedience  unto  death,  is  the  only  (/round  on  which 
sinners  can  be  justified;  and  their  faith,  which  receives  and  rests  upon  this 
"obedience  unto  death,"  is  the  only  rondiiion  on  which  they  can  be  justi- 
fieil:  and  these  two  facts  explain  the  veiy  nature  of  the  atoning  sacrifice. 
The  faith  of  man  in  this  sacrifice  is  a  "  faith  to  feed  upon  Christ,"  that  is,  to 
be  nourished  by  the  great  truths  involved  in  the  body  broken  and  the  blood 
shed  for  transgressors:  —  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  reveals  the 
spirit  of  the  sacrificial  death.  Agreeably  to  the  arrangement  called  the  cove- 
nant of  redemption,  the  Redeemer  made  the  atonement  for  all  men:  agree- 
ably to  the  arrangement  called  the  covenant  of  grace,  the  Sovereign  of  the 
iniiverse  determined  from  all  eternity,  on  the  ground  of  this  atonement,  to 
regenerate  and  pardon  some  men;  accordingly  Christ  suffered  and  died  for 
the  whole  race,  but  is  tlie  actual  and  only  Redeemer  of  only  a  part  of  the  race. 


58 

Such  is  Professor  Park's  interpretation  of  the  statements  of  the 
Creed  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement.  Dr.  Leonard  Wood's 
interpretation  was  the  same.  He  taught  as  doctrines  of  the  Creed, 
not  as  opinions,  but  as  doctrines,  that  Christ  alone  made  atone- 
ment for  the  sins  of  all  men,  that  in  his  sufferings  and  death  he 
offered  himself  a  sacrifice  for  sinners,  that  he  was  their  substitute, 
and  that  his  sufferings  and  death  were  accepted  as  an  equivalent 
for  the  punishment  desen'ed  b}"  sinners.  [  Works,  vol.  ii.  Lec- 
tures on  the  Atonement,  pp.  456-464.]  Professor  Moses  Stuart 
was  intimately  acquainted  with  the  Founders  of  the  Seminary,  and 
knew  how  they  interpreted  their  own  Symbol  of  Faith  :  and  his 
statement  concerning  Christ's  atoning  work  is.  that : 

His  sufferings  and  death  were,  by  diviyie  appoiiitment,  accepted  instead 
of  the  punishment  due  to  us  as  sinners,  and  that  God,  iyi  consequence  of  the 
offering  made  by  Christ,  pardons  our  offences  and  restores  us  to  his  favor. 
And  he  adds,  This  also  is  just  what  I  mean  when  I  say,  that  Christ  in  his 
sufferings  and  death  icas  our  sucstitute.     [Miscellanies,  p.  223.] 

But  what  is  the  theory  of  the  atonement,  now  taught  at  Andover, 
as  set  forth  in  the  volume  entitled  Progressive  Orthodoxy,  for  the 
teachings  of  which  Professor  Egbert  C  Smj'th  is  responsible? 

1.  Progressive  Orthodoxy  denies  that  the  Son  of  God  alone  made 
atonement  for  the  sins  of  man,  but  affirms,  that  whatever  he  did  in 
the  direction  of  atonement  he  accomplished  in  union  with  the  entire 
human  race.     Notice  the  following  affirmations  : 

Thus  we  can  regard  Him  [Christ]  as  our  substitute,  not  because  He  stands 
apart,  not  because  He  is  one  and  the  race  another,  but  because  He  is  so  inti- 
mately identified  with  us,  and  because  in  essential  respects  the  life  of  every 
one  is,  or  may  be,  locked  in  with  his  [p.  53].  He  is  one,  in  with  the  race, 
who  has  the  power  of  bringing  it  into  sympathy  with  his  own  feeling  towards 
God  and  towards  sin  [pp.  55-61.  Humanity  with  Christ  in  it  is  propitiated 
to  the  divine  thought  from  all  eternity  [p.  61].  In  the  Atonement  Christ 
the  Son  of  Man  brings  all  humanity  to  God.  Xo  member  of  the  race  is  sepa- 
rate from  him  who  thus  offers  himself  [p.  06]. 

The  Creed  says  that  "  the  Son  of  God,  and  he  alone,  by  his 
sufferings  and  death,  has  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all  men." 
Progressive  Orthodoxy  says  :  "  No  member  of  the  human  race  is 
separate  from  him  who  thus  offers  himself."  Also  it  says,  ''  "When 
Christ  suffers,  the  race  suffers.  AVhen  Christ  is  sorrowful,  the 
race  is  sorrowful"  [p.  .")31.  All  this  looks  very  much  as  if 
Christ  were  »o^  alnnem  making;  the  atonement,  as  if  the  entire  race 


59 

took  part  with  him  in  accomplishing  that  stupendous  work,  as  if 
every  man  ivith  Christ  made  atonement  for  his  own  sins. 

It  is  impossible  to  understand  the  New  Departure  views  of  the 
atonement,  or,  indeed,  of  hardly  any  religious  doctrine,  without 
first  understanding  and  then  keeping  constantly  in  mind,  the  theory 
of  the  universal  headship  of  Christ  in  the  human  race,  or  as  it  is 
sometimes  called  with  a  still  larger  meaning,  "  the  universality  of 
Christ's  Person."  This  theory  has  already  been  alluded  to,  but 
there  is  need  that  it  be  as  clearly  and  fully  apprehended  as  such  a 
mystical  notion  can  be.  It  is  not  the  Scriptural  doctrine  that 
Christ  is  the  Head  of  the  Church,  which  is  his  bodj' :  nor  that  He 
was  the  Federal  Head  of  the  race,  that  is,  its  representative,  or 
substitute  ;  nor  yet  that  He  is  Head  over  all  things  to  the  Church, 
the  only  Creator  and  supreme  Sovereign  ;  but  the  notion  is,  that 
through  his  incarnation,  or  by  virtue  of  being  the  Son  of  Man,  He 
is  the  Head  of  the  entire  human  race,  in  the  sense,  that  every  hu- 
man being  is  organically  and  vitally  related  to  him,  identified  with 
him,  and  reconstituted  in  him.  The  zinioyi  of  every  man  with  Christ 
is  believed  to  be  as  vital  and  real  as  that  of  the  members  of  the 
human,  fleshly  body  with  their  head. 

This  speculation  is  set  forth  in  Progressive  Orthodoxy,  in  such 
language  as  the  following : 

He  (Christ)  has  kinship  with  us  all  by  being  oiu- common  Head  [p.  19]. 
But  it  lies  also  in  His  mediatorship  that  He  is  the  head  of  the  race,  and  not 
a  mere  member  of  it,  and  that  humanity  in  Him  becomes  receptive  of  the 
divine  fulness,  so  that  there  are  gathered  up  in  Him  all  divine  gifts  for  men 
[p.  21].  One  view  of  the  atonement  is  gained  by  considering  the  historical 
Christ  in  relation  to  humanity  and  as  identijied  with  it;  in  which  view  we 
see,  that  the  race  of  men  with  Christ  in  it  is  essentially  different  in  fact, 
and  therefore  in  the  sight  of  God,  from  the  same  race  without  Clirist  in  it. 
...  So  we  have  become  accustomed  to  the  thought  that  Christ  has  an  or- 
ganic relation  to  the  race.  He  is  an  individual,  but  an  individual  vitally 
related  to  every  human  being.  He  preferred  to  be  called  the  Son  of  Man. 
Paul  sees  in  Him  tlie  Head  of  humanity,  the  second  Adam  [p.  52].  Christ, 
as  has  been  shown  in  preceding  discussions,  is  the  universal  man.  .  .  .  His 
relationship  is  not  tribal  or  national,  but  human,  as  comprehensive  as  the 
race.  He  is  the  second  Adam,  the  head  and  progenitor  of  renewed  human- 
ity Ip.  73]. 

On  p.  110,  we  find  this  affirmation  : 

The  movement  of  Christian  thought  with  which  we  sympathize  signifies, 
in  its  deepest  meaning,  the  exaltation  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Head  of  hu- 
manity, the  Son  of  God,  the  Redeemer  of  men,  the  Mediator  of  God  to  the 


60 

whole  universe.     For  us  He  is  all  this,  or  else  He  is  in  no  peculiar  sense 
sent  of  Goil,  and  we  have  no  gospel  of  redemption. 

This  is  a  siguificant  statement.  It  is  nothing  distinctive  of  the 
New  Theology  to  exalt  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God,  the  Re- 
deemer and  the  Mediator,  but  it  is  distinctive  of  it,  not  to  exalt 
Him  as  the  Head  of  his  Church,  which  is  his  body,  and  yet  to  ex- 
alt him  as  the  Head  of  a  fallen,  sinful  and  condemned  race  which 
is  not  his  body,  but  which  He  came  to  redeem,  offering  himself  an 
atoning  sacrifice  for  it,  so  that  whosoever  will  may  be  united  to 
Him  and  to  his  redeemed  body  in  love,  service  and  eternal  glory. 

The  citations  now  made  sufficiently  set  forth  the  New  Departure 
notion  of  Christ's  organic  and  vital  union,  through  his  incarnation, 
with  every  human  being.  Every  human  being,  then,  was  loith  and 
in  Christ  in  making  the  atonement.  Christ  separate  and  alone  did 
not  offer  the  atoning  sacrifice.  Our  first  statement  therefore  is 
abundantly  sustained.  Progressive  Orthodoxy  flatly  denies  this 
teaching  of  the  Creed,  namely  that  the  Son  of  God  alone  —  not 
with  any  other  being  —  but  separate  and  alone,  by  his  sufferings 
and  death  made  atonement  for  sin.  On  the  other  hand,  Progres- 
sive^Orthodoxy  affirms  :  that  "  No  member  of  the  race  is  separate 
from  him  who  thus  offers  himself." 

2.  The  New  Theology,  in  its  theory  of  Christ's  substitutionary 
relation  to  men,  sliarply  antagonizes  the  Creed. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Andover  Creed,  —  not  our  opinion,  but  the 
Scriptural  doctrine — involved  in  the  statements  of  the  Creed  respect- 
ing the  atonement  as  they  have  been  understood  and  interpreted  by 
all  the  Professors  who  have  taught  theology  in  the  Seminary,  from 
the  beginning  until  recent  years  —  is  that  the  Sou  of  God,  in  his 
atoning  sacrifice,  offered  himself  as  a  divinely  appointed  substitute 
for  sinners,  and  that  his  sufferings  and  death  were  accepted  of  God 
as  equivalent  to,  and  a  suljstitute  for.  the  penal  sufferings  which 
sinners  deserved.  But  the  New  Theology  advocates  auother  kind 
of  sacrificial  atonement  and  substitution  —  a  novel  theory  which  can- 
not possibly  be  reconciled  with  the  doctrine  in  which  the  Founders 
believed,  which  they  put  into  their  Creed,  and  which  always,  until 
very  recently,  has  been  taught  in  the  Seminary.  The  new  specu- 
lation is  stated  in  the  following  words  : 

The  suhstitution  is  not  of  Christ  standing  on  this  side  for  the  race  stand- 
ing on  that  side,  but  the  race  with  Christ  in  it  is  substituted  for  the  race 
without  Christ  in  it.  .  .  .  Likewise  the  individual  in  Christ  takes  the  place 
of  the  individual  without  Cluist  [p.  50]. 


iHi 


61 

Aceordinc:  to  this  view,  the  union  of  the  imlividual  with  Christ 
his  Head  is  substituted  for  non-union  witli  liini.  Xo  one  being 
takes  the  place  of  the  sinner.  JVo  one  being  performs  u  vicarious 
and  saving  work  for  men.  The  tinion  of  the  race  with  Christ  its 
Head  is  substituted  for  non-»nion  of  the  race  with  Clu-ist.  Christ, 
separate  and  alone,  is  substituted  for  nobody.  Yet  one  statement 
on  p.  53  begins  in  this  way :  "  Thus  we  can  regard  Him  as  our 
substitute,  not  because  He  stands  apart,  not  because  He  is  one  and 
the  race  another."  But  how  can  He  be  a  substitute  for  the  race, 
unless  He  is  one,  and  the  race  another?  If  He  and  the  race  are 
identical,  can  there  be  any  substitution?  Can  a  unit  be  substi- 
tuted for  itself  ?  It  is  inconsistent  for  the  New  Theology  to  call 
Christ  "  our  substitute :  "  for  He,  in  his  sacrifice,  is  a  substitute  for 
no  one.  Our  onlj'  substitute  is  ourselves  in  union  with  Christ. 
Christ  alone  takes  the  place  of  no  sinner.  He  alone  is  apt  a  vica- 
rious Saviour.  He  has  not  suffered  and  died  in  our  stead,  and  his 
sufferings  and  death  have  not  been  accepted  of  God  as  an  equiva- 
lent for  our  deserved  punishment.  This,  indeed,  is  admitted  on 
p.  57  in  these  words,  *"  It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  it  is 
not  clear  how  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  can  be  substituted 
for  the  punishment  of  sin." 

But  according  to  the  theology  of  the  Andover  Symbol  of  faith, 
the  very  heart  of  the  atonement  is,  that  our  Lord's  priestly  sacri- 
fice of  himself  in  his  sufferings  and  death  ioas  a  vicarious  sacri- 
fice, and  that  his  sufferings  and  death  luere  substituted  for  the 
punishment  of  sin.  He  alone  was  our  High  Priest.  He  alone  was 
our  sacrifice,  offered /or  us.  He  suffered,  then,  in  our  stead.  And 
ichat  he  endured  for  us  is  accepted  of  God  as  a  substitute  for  the 
penal  sufferings  we  deserve. 

These  two  views  of  the  atonement,  the  New  Departure  view  and 
the  Creed  view,  are  out  of  all  sympathy  with  one  another,  and 
there  seems  to  Ije  no  possible  way  in  which  they  can  be  brought 
into  harmony. 

3.  The  New  Theology  antagonizes  the  teaching  of  the  Andover 
Creed,  in  representing  that  God  is  propitiated  towards  sinners,  on 
the  fjroiiiid  that  the  incarnate  Christ  has  imparted  to  them  powers 
for  repentance  and  lioliness,  and  so  given  them  an  importance  and 
value,  in  the  sight  of  God  which  they  would  not  otherwise  possess. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Andover  Symbol  is,  that  God  has  become 
propitious  toward^^  sinners  on  the  rimnnrl  of  Christ's  atoning 
sacrifice;  in  other  words,  tliat  lie  is  graciously  disposed  towards 


62 

them,  and  stands  read}'  to  justify  and  save  penitent  and  belie\iug 
sinners,  because  Christ  has  taken  their  place,  suffered  and  died 
for  them.  But  Progressive  Orthodoxy  affirms  ''that  the  race  of 
men  with  Christ  in  it  is  essentially  different  in  fact,  and  therefore 
in  the  sight  of  God.  from  the  same  race  without  Christ  in  it  "  [p. 
52].  The  representation  in  this  language  seems  to  be,  that  God 
looks  more  favorably  upon  the  race,  because  Christ,  in  his  incarna- 
tion, has  become  vitally  related  to  it.  He  is  propitious  towards  all 
men,  because  all  men  are  in  organic  union  with  Christ.  Again  it 
is  stated,  that  "the  individual  in  Christ  takes  the  place  of  the  in- 
dividual without  Christ,  is  looked  on  as  one  whom  Christ  can  bring 
to  repentance  and  obedience,  and  so  is  justified  even  before  faith 
develops  into  character"  [p.  56].  This  seems  to  teach,  that 
God  is  propitious  towards  the  individual  sinner,  and  also  justifies 
him  even  Iftfore  faith  develops  into  character,  because  He  sees  that 
Christ  is  vitally  united  to  him.  and  so  is  able  to  bring  him  to  re- 
pentance and  obedience.  This  union  of  Christ  with  the  human 
race  is  the  one  fact  that  is  of  supreme  power  in  propitiating  God. 
"We  are  told,  that  "  He  is  one.  in  with  the  race,  who  has  the  poioer 
of  bringing  it  into  sympathy  with  his  own  feeling  towards  God 
and  towards  sin  ;  and  so  God  looks  on  the  race  as  having  this 
power  in  Christ"  [pp.  55-6].  Thus  every  member  of  the  race 
is  regarded  by  God  as  of  more  consequence  and  worth  on  account 
of  his  union  with  Christ,  and  on  this  ground  God  smiles  upon  him 
and  stands  ready  to  justify  him. 

Another  statement  is,  that  ••  the  race  is  reconstituted  in  Christ, 
and  is  other  in  the  sight  of  God,  because  different  in  fact,  because 
containing  powers  for  repentance  and  holiness  which,  without 
Christ,  it  would  be  hopelessly  destitute  of"  [p.  56].  AVe  have 
here  a  positive  statement,  that  the  entire  race  is  "  other  in  the 
sight  of  God,"  — and  it  being  other,  he  stands  of  course  in  other 
attitudes  towards  it  —  because  it  is  reconstituted  in  Christ,  and  so 
has  powers  for  repentance  and  holiness,  which  it  otherwise  could 
not  have.  The  ground,  then,  of  God's  gracious  favor  to  the  race, 
is  that  Christ,  in  his  vital  union  with  it,  has  imparted  to  it  certain 
new  and  invaluable  powers.  Is  that  the  teaching  of  the  Andover 
Creed  ?   Can  that  be  harmonized  with  the  Andover  Symbol  of  Faith  ? 

"We  are  also  told,  that : 

God  does  not  become  propitious  because  man  repents  and  amends,  for 
that  is  bej'ond  man's  power.  He  becomes  propitious  because  Christ,  laying 
down  his  life,  makes  the  race  to  its  worst  individual  capable  of  repenting, 
obeying,  trusting  "  [p.  5S]. 


63 

The  representation  in  this  passage  appears  to  be,  that  the  gronnrl 
of  God's  being  propitious  to  the  entire  sinful  race,  is,  that  the  in- 
carnate Christ,  not  simply  by  his  union  with  the  race,  but  by  his 
death,  imparts  to  every  man,  even  the  worst,  the  cai^ahility  of 
repenting,  obeying,  trusting.  God  looks  upon  this  capability  im- 
parted through  Christ's  death,  and  is  propitiated. 

In  view  of  all  these  representations,  then,  the  theory  seems  to 
be,  that,  in  whatever  way  the  power  or  capability  of  rendering 
obedience  is  imparted,  by  the  impartation  of  it  augmented  im- 
portance and  value  are  given  to  the  race  in  God's  vieiv,  and  so  he 
is  propitiated  towards  it,  and  stands  ready  to  justify  and  save 
sinners. 

Now  how  can  this  theorj'  be  reconciled  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
Andover  Formulary  of  Belief?  According  to  that  Confession, 
the  only  ground  upon  which  God  becomes  propitious  to  sinful  men 
is  the  atoning  sacrifice  of  Christ.  According  to  the  New  Theol- 
ogy, the  only  ground  upon  which  God  becomes  propitious  to  sin- 
ners, is,  the  impartation  to  them  by  Christ  of  x)ower  to  repent. 
The  Andover  Confession  teaches  that  the  only  ground  of  a  penitent 
and  believing  sinner's  justification  is  Christ's  obedience  unto  death. 
The  New  Theology  teaches  that,  the  sinner  in  Christ,  taking  the 
place  of  the  sinner  tvithout  Christ,  "  is  looked  on  as  one  whom 
Christ  can  bring  to  repentance  and  obedience,  and  so  is  justified 
even  before  faith  develops  into  character"  [p.  56].  The  doctrine 
of  the  Andover  Formulary  of  Faith  is,  that  Christ's  sacrifice 
avails  with  God  because  it  is  an  atoning  and  vicarious  sacrifice  ; 
because  it  is  the  07dy  ground  on  which  he  can  justify  sinners. 
The  theory  of  the  New  Theology  is  that  "  Christ's  sacrifice  avails 
with  God,  because  it  is  adapled  to  bring  man  to  repentance" 
[p.  55]. 

4.  Progressive  Orthodo.ry  antagonizes  the  Andover  Creed,  in 
teaching,  that  the  atonement  of  Christ  consists  essentially  and 
chiefly  in  his  becoming  identified  with  the  human  race  through  his 
incarnation,  and  not  in  his  sufferings  and  death.  The  doctrine  of 
the  Seminary  Symbol  is,  that,  '•  The  Son  of  God,  and  He  alone,  by 
his  sufferings  and  death,  has  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all 
men."  Then  He,  and  He  alone,  made  atonement  in  his  sufferings 
and  death,  and  the  atonement  consists  in  his  passion  and  sacrifice. 

Now  the  atonement  of  tlie  incarnate  Son  of  God  is  his  substitu- 
tionary, or  vicarious  work,  whatever  that  work  was.  This  seems 
to  be  admitted  by  the  Progressive  Divines.     But  what,  in  the  view 


64 

of   the    New  Theology,    is    the    substitutionary  work   of   Christ? 
We  find  such  statements  as  these  : 

The  substitution  is  not  of  Christ  standing  on  this  side  for  tlie  race  stand- 
ing on  that  side,  but  the  race  witli  Christ  in  it  is  substituted  for  the  race 
without  Clirist  in  it.  .  .  •  Likewise  the  individual  in  Clii'ist  takes  tlie  place 
of  the  individual  without  Christ  [p.  50]. 

These  declarations,  and  others  like  them,  as  we  have  already 
shown,  set  forth  the  only  vicariousness  or  substitution  of  any  kind 
found  in  the  New  Departure  theory  of  the  atonement.  Let  it  be 
observed,  that  it  is  not  the  race  alone  that  is  suljstituted,  nor  Christ 
alone,  but  "  the  race  with  Christ  in  it ;  "  that  is,  it  is  the  tinion  of 
the  two  that  is  substituted  for  the  race  witliout  that  union.  That 
union  of  Christ  ivith  the  race  is  the  incarnation,  as  set  forth  in  the 
theory  of  the  universal  headship  of  Christ.  Therefore  that  incar- 
nation is  the  atonement.  That  incarnation,  or  that  xinion  of 
Christ,  in  his  humanity,  with  the  race,  and  that  alone,  in  this  the- 
OYy,  is  substitutionary.  The  death  of  Christ,  so  far  as  it  is  a  part 
of  the  incarnation,  or  is  necessarily  connected  with  it,  may  be  con- 
sidered as,  in  some  sort,  a  part  of  the  atonement ;  but  it  is  rele- 
gated to  a  subordinate  place  ;  for  it  is  the  union  of  Christ  ^uith 
the  race,  his  identification  with  men  —  not  his  death  —  that  con- 
stitutes the  vicarious  element,  according  to  this  theory.  The 
atonement,  therefore,  consists  essentially  and  chiefly  in  that  suh- 
stitutionary  union  of  Christ  with  the  race  ;  and  his  sufferings  and 
death  can  be  only  incidental,  even  if  necessarily  incidental,  to  that 
union.  The  relation  of  his  sufferings  and  death  to  the  incarna- 
tion, or  to  the  vicarious  atonement  of  the  New  Theology,  is  very 
much  like  that  of  his  birth  to  the  same.  His  birth  was  essential 
to  his  incarnation.  So  his  death  was  essential  to  his  temporary 
incarnation.  He  could  not  have  been  glorified  without  some  kind 
of  termination  to  his  life  in  the  flesh.  It  might  be  said,  that 
Christ  became  incarnate,  or  was  l3orn,  on  account  of  our  sins,  with 
reference  to  them,  born  that  He  might  Ijecome  vitally  united  with 
sinners  and  give  them  power  to  repent  of  their  sins.  So  it  may 
be  said,  that  Christ  died  on  account  of  our  sins,  or  even  for  our 
sins,  died  in  order  to  complete  the  incarnation  by  which  sinners 
are  empowered  to  repent  of  their  sins.  These  things  can  lie  said 
of  both  the  birth  and  death  of  Christ,  witliout  meaning  tliat  either 
of  them  constitutes  essentially  and  chiefly  the  atonement. 

Moreover,   in   tlie    New   Theology,   special    emphasis    is   placed 


65 

upon  the  fact,  that  Christ's  death  was  a  tragic  and  pathetic  event, 
fitted  to  reveal  vividly  the  wickedness  of  the  men  who  crucified 
him,  and  so  indirectly  the  exceeding  sinfulness  of  sin,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  manifest  his  own  righteousness  and  compassion,  to 
present  to  the  world  a  realization  of  God's  love,  and  in  all  this  to 
move  persuasively  the  sensibilities  and  wills  of  men.  But  this 
does  not  indicate  that  Christ's  death  had  any  thing  more  than  a 
secondaiy  importance  in  the  atonement.  If  the  atonement  con- 
sisted essentially  and  chiefly  in  Christ's  snbstitufionanj  relations 
and  work,  then  it  consisted,  according  to  the  New  Departure  the- 
ory, in  his  organic  and  vital  union  with  the  race  ;  for  the  only  sub- 
stitution recognized  in  this  theory  of  the  atonement  is  that  of  the 
race  v:i(h  Christ  in  it.  for  the  race  irithoiit  Christ  in  it. 

Again,  the  atonement  of  the  incarnate  Son  of  God  is  his  propi- 
tintory  work,  whatever  that  work  may  be.  But  what  his  propi- 
tiatory work,  according  to  the  New  Theology,  is,  we  have  already 
seen.     "We  are  told,  that: 

God  does  not  becom.-  propitious  because  man  repents  and  amends,  for 
that  is  beyond  man's  po  ver.  He  becomes  propitious  because  Christ,  laying 
down  his  life,  makes  the  race  to  its  worst  individual  capable  of  repenting, 
obeying,  trusting  [x>.  58]. 

That  is,  because  Christ,  through  his  death,  gives  the  race  a  new 
capability^  God  is  propitiated  to  the  race.  God  is  not  made  pro- 
pitious by^  Christ's  atoning  sacrifice,  but  only  by  man's  being 
made,  through  Christ's  death,  capable  of  repenting,  obeying,  trust- 
ing. But  hoiv  is  this  capability  imparted  to  man  through  Christ's 
death?  According  to  Progressive  Orthodoxy^  Christ's  death  was 
not  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  as  it  was  not  a  substitute  for  the  pun- 
ishment of  the  sinner.  But^  in  its  manner,  it  was  "  an  astonish- 
ing, revealing,  persuasive,  melting  fact."  fitted  to  accomplish  cer- 
tain ethical  ends,  to  move  man's  emotional  and  elective  ix»wers, 
and  so  make  him  capable  of  olx'ving  God.  By  Christ's  birth  into 
the  race  and  his  vital  union  with  it,  he  imparts  to  every  man  the 
po'cer  to  repent,  and  to  obey  God  in  all  things.  But  the  imparta- 
tion  of  that  power  is  not  enough.  Before  man  is  capable  of  re- 
penting, he  must  have  knoicledge  of  Christ  and  of  God  in  him  ; 
must  know  Christ  in  his  historic  life,  as  the  head  of  the  race,  as 
united  to  every  man,  as  bringing,  in  his  gospel,  heavenly  truth  and 
love  to  men,  and  among  all  these  and  other  methods  of  knoioinrj  the 
historic  Jesus,  it  is  needful  to  know  him  in  his  death.     The  per- 


66 

suasive  and  energizing  power  of  this  Jcnoidedge,  however  obtained, 
of  the  personal  Christ  is  regarded,  by  the  New  Theology,  as  indis- 
pensable in  the  work  of  making  men  capable  of  obeying  God. 

But  this  indispensable  knowledge,  as  just  intimated,  may  be 
gained  in  different  waj^s,  some  learning  of  him  through  one  aspect 
of  his  Person  and  work,  and  others  through  other  aspects.  Had 
Clirist  ended  his  life  by  a  peaceful  and  glorious  translation  like 
that  of  Elijah,  the  essential  and  chief  elements  of  this  new  kind  of 
atonement  would  have  remained  all  the  same.  The  incarnation 
with  all  its  vicariousness  and  proj^itiation  would  not  have  been 
changed.  The  race  with  Christ  in  it  would  still  have  been  substi- 
tuted for  the  race  without  Christ  in  it.  God  would  still  have  been 
propitiated  by  Christ's  imjmi-tation  to  men  of  power  to  repent. 
Men  would  still  have  had  knowledge  of  the  Historic  Christ  — 
which  knowledge  is  regarded  by  the  Progressive  Divines  as  of 
supreme  importance,  —  would  still  have  had  also  knowledge  of 
God  in  Christ,  and  of  nearly  all  the  revelations  of  truth  and  love 
which  Christ  made  to  man  before  his  death.  This  shows  how  very 
far,  according  to  the  New  Theology,  the  sufferings  and  death  of 
Christ  are  from  being  central  and  supreme  in  the  atonement. 
Whatever  ethical  influence  may  be  ascribed  to  such  a  death  of  such 
a  man  —  to  a  death  so  cruel  and  wicked,  so  melting  and  persua- 
sive, yet  that  death  of  Christ  with  his  passion  does  not  in  the  New 
Theology,  as  in  that  of  the  Creed,  constitute  the  vicarious  and  pro- 
pitiatory atonement  of  the  Son  of  God.  Christ's  sufferings  and 
death,  as  regarded  by  Progressive  Orthodoxy,  have  simply  a  reveal- 
ing and  persuasive  function.  They  manifest  the  love  of  God  and 
the  sinfulness  of  sin,  stir  the  sensibilities,  and  determine  the  choices 
of  men,  in  precisely  the  same  way  that  the  tragic  sufferings  and 
death  of  John  the  Baptist  did  in  their  measure,  and  in  such  a  way 
as  the  cruel  martyrdoms  of  holy  men  have  always  done  in  their 
measure. 

Still  this  strange  theory  of  atonement  does  allow  its  advocates  to 
speak  of  it  as  having  an  influence  Godward,  as  well  as  manward. 
It  is  vicarious,  and  it  is  propitiatory,  after  a  sort.  Christ  alone  is 
substituted  for  no  sinner,  but  the  race  in  union  with  Christ  is  sub- 
stituted for  the  race  out  of  that  union.  Christ  alone  does  not 
propitiate  God  towards  an}'  sinner  ;  but  Christ  in  union  with  the 
race,  and  b}-  irapartation  to  men,  through  that  union,  of  power 
and  capacity  to  repent,  does  propitiate  God  towards  tlie  race.  So 
it  is  claimed.     This  view  allows  its  advocates  to  use,  to  a  certain 


67 

limited  extent,  the  same  plirascology  which  is  used  in  speaking  of 
the  vicarious  and  propitiatory  atonement  made  by  the  sufferings 
and  death  of  Christ,  —  the  great  doctrine  of  the  atonement  set 
forth  in,  and  required  to  be  taught  by,  the  Andover  Creed.  But, 
in  the  New  Theology,  the  familiar  phraseology  is  used  with  another 
meaning,  and  many  are  deceived.  Allusion  has  already  been 
made  to  a  similar  abuse  of  familiar  and  sacred  language,  in  using, 
out  of  their  established  meaning,  the  phrases,  '^  in  Christ,"  '•  in 
tinion  icith  Christ."  Another  example  is  found  in  diverting  from 
their  more  usual  significance,  the  phrases,  "  Jcnoiving  Christ,"  "  the 
knowledge  of  Christ."  And  now  we  find  a  corresponding  abnor- 
mal use  of  language  in  the  discussion  upon  the  atonement.  Such 
terms  as  ^'■vicarious,"  '•^ propitiator u,"  "vicarious  atonement," 
"  propitiatory  atonement,"  signify  something  very  different  from 
that  vicarious  and  propitiatory  atonement  which  the  Son  of  God, 
^' and  He  alone"  made  "by  His  sufferings  and  death,"  and 
which  is  '''■  the  only  ground"  of  a  sinner's  justification  and  salva- 
tion. The  kind  of  atonement  advocated  in  the  new  theory  would 
be  more  exactly  designated  by  some  such  terms  as  these:  "the 
atoning  miion  of  Christ  with  the  race,"  "  the  substitutionar}' «n?'07i 
of  the  race  with  Christ,"  "  the  propitiatory  impartation  of  powers 
and  capacities  to  men,"  or  "the  atoning,  vicarious,  and  propitia- 
tory incarnation." 

Certain  complete  statements,  also,  in  the  article  on  the  atone- 
ment, as  elsewhere,  need  to  be  examined  and  interpreted  in  the 
light  of  the  new  theory.  On  p.  59  is  found  this  language:  "It 
is  true,  then,  that  Christ  suffered  for  our  sins,  and  that  because 
He  suffered  our  sins  are  forgiven."  On  p.  62  is  this  sentence, 
"The  complete  truth  is  that  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  an  indis- 
pensable condition  of  the  forgiveness  of  sin."  It  would  be  a 
delightful  surprise  to  learn,  that  this  language  means  what,  to 
most  readers,  it  seems  to  say.  But  the  sentences  look  singular  on 
these  pages.  The}'  are  in  strange  compau}'.  "What  is  their  signi- 
ficance ?  Are  they  simply  two  lonely  fragments  of  a  Scriptural, 
but  now  departed,  faith,  found  on  these  dreary  wastes  of  specula- 
tive theology?  Or,  are  the  old,  familiar  and  sacred  statements 
used  with  a  new  meaning?  "We  fear  the  latter  is  the  true  explana- 
tion. When  the  Progressive  Divines  say  that  "  Christ  suffered /o?" 
our  sins,"  they  cannot  intend  to  affirm  that  Christ  died  for  our 
sin,  vicarioushf  offering  himself  alone  as  our  substitute  before 
God,  and  his  sufferings  as  a  substitute  for  our  punishment ;  for  on 


68 

p.  57  they  expressly  object  to  that  kiud  of  substitution,  saying, 
"  It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  it  is  not  clear  how  the  suffer- 
ings and  death  of  Christ  can  be  substituted  for  the  punishment  of 
sin."  In  saj'iug  that  "Christ  suffered /or  our  sins,"  they  may 
mean,  that  He  suffered  on  account  of  our  sins,  in  pity  and  grief 
for  us,  as  a  mother  suffers  for  the  wrong-doing  of  her  son,  and 
that  because  He  thus  suffered  in  pity  and  grief,  we  are  forgiven. 
Or  they  may  mean  by  Christ's  suffering  for  sins,  that  He  suffered 
by  reason  of  them,  by  coming  into  contact  with  sinners  in  his  incar- 
nate life  ;  or  in  his  organic  and  vital  union  with  them  '  •  suffered 
and  died,"  as  we  are  told  on  p.  59,  "  i?i  bringing  the  knowledge 
and  love  of  God  to  men."  This  is  doubtless  what  is  meant.  And 
then  it  would  follow,  that  if  Christ  cannot  come  into  contact  with 
sinners  without  suffering  from  them,  and  cannot  obtain  forgive- 
ness for  them  loithout  coming  into  contact  with  them,  his  suffering 
is,  incidentally,  a  '•'■  condition  "  of  their  forgiveness  ;  but  it  is  not 
the  ground  of  their  forgiveness,  nor  is  it  the  cause  of  their  forgive- 
ness, nor  in  any  way  efficient  in  procuring  it.  In  that  case  the 
sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  were  simply  incidental,  something 
not  desired,  but  that  must  be  endured  to  gain  a  certain  end  ;  like 
the  pain  and,  perhaps,  loss  of  life,  incurred,  when  a  good  man 
plunges  into  a  den  filled  with  malignant  and  fiendish  men  to  save 
some  of  them,  if  possible,  from  their  degradation  and  ruin. 

When  it  is  said  on  p.  59  that  ••  Christ  suffered  for  our  sins,  arKl 
that  because  He  suffered  our  sins  are  forgiven,"  it  is  immediately' 
added,  ''■But  the  suffering  was  borne  because  it  lay  in  the  path  to 
redemption."  But  if  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  were  borne 
simply  because  they  lay  in  his  path,  as  He  hastened  to  redeem  men, 
—  if  they  were  borne  simply  because  in  rescuing  men  He  could  not 
but  come  into  contact  with  them,  and  suffer  "  Z>y  reason  of"  their 
sins,  then  hovj  were  his  sufferings  any  thing  more  than  incidental 
to  his  redeeming  work?  And  can  such  a  view  of  the  atoning  pas- 
sion and  sacrifice  of  our  Lord  be  taught  in  Audover  Seminar}-,  in 
consistency  with  her  symbol  of  faith?  This  point  is  vital.  Pardon 
an  illustration.  A  man  is  sick  unto  death.  A  physician  hastens 
to  his  chamber,  and  by  skilful  prescriptions  and  surgery  saves  the 
life  of  the  dying  man.  But  in  doing  this  the  physician  himself 
takes  blood-poison  into  his  system,  suffers  and  dies.  Now  it 
would  be  truthful  to  say,  in  this  case,  that  the  sufferings  and  death 
of  the  physician  were  occasioned  by  his  coming  into  contact  with 
the  sick  man  ;  that  he  suffered  and  died  "  by  reason  of  "  the  man's 


69 

malignant  disease  ;  and  that  his  sufferings  and  death  " /«?/ m  the 
path  "  to  the  saving  of  that  dying  man.  But  they  were  onl}'  inci- 
dental to  his  salvation  or  recovery.  It  would  not  be  truthful  to  say 
that  the  sufferings  and  death  of  the  ph3-siciau  were  indispensable  to 
the  saving  of  that  sick  man's  life  ;  nor  to  say  that  the  sick  man's 
life  was  saved  6y,  or  through,  the  sufferings  and  death  of  the  phy- 
sician ;  nor  to  represent  that  his  sufferings  were  the  efficient  cause, 
or  the  instrumental  cause,  or  were  in  any  way  efficacious,  in  saving 
the  dying  man's  life.  Such  representations  would  be  false  and 
indefensible.  Equally'  false  and  indefensible,  if  this  new  theory  of 
the  atonement  be  true,  are  the  statements  that  "the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  is  the  indispensable  condition  of  the  forgiveness  of  sin,"  and 
that  "men,  who  are  saved  from  sin  and  death,  are  saved  through 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ."  The  Progressive  Divines,  if  they  can  be 
judged  b}'  their  beliefs  as  expressed  in  Progressive  Orthodox)/,  do 
not  believe,  that  ••  the  Son  of  God.  and  He  alone,  by  his  sufferings 
and  death,  has  made  atonement  for  the  sins  "  of  men  ;  nor  that  He, 
and  He  alone,  in  his  sufferings  and  death,  was  a  substitute  for  sin- 
ners ;  nor  that  his  suft'eriugs  and  death  were  offered  and  accepted 
as  a  substitute  for  the  punishment  of  sin  ;  nor  that  they  were  a  pro- 
pitiation for  the  sins  of  the  world  ;  nor  that  they  were  the  only 
ground  of  a  sinner's  justification  and  redemption.  But  the  Progres- 
sive Divines  do  believe,  that  Christ's  atonement  —  so  far  as  He 
made  any  —  was  made  by  his  union,  through  his  incarnation  and 
headship,  with  ever}'  human  being  ;  that  the  only  substitution  in 
this  atonement  was  that  of  the  race  with  Christ  in  it  for  the  race 
without  Christ  in  it ;  that  the  only  propitiation  in  this  atonement, 
and  the  only  ground  of  a  sinner's  justification  and  redemption,  is 
the  impartation  to  him,  by  Christ,  of  power  and  capacity  to  repent. 
The  saddest  thing  about  this  Progressive  theory  of  atonement  is 
that  it  puts  dishonor  upon  the  sacrificial  death  of  the  Son  of  God, 
dims  the  glory  of  his  cross,  has  no  place  for  and  seldom  speaks  of 
the  Lamb  slain,  or  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  who  is  our  passover, 
sacrificed  for  us.  Such  a  theory  is  not  simph-  antagonistic  to  the 
great  Scriptural  doctrine  of  atonement  as  presented  in  the  Andover 
Creed,  but  if  true,  is  destructive  of  it,  and  also  of  the  whole  sys- 
tem of  Evangelical  faith  which  the  Seminary  was  founded  to  main- 
tain and  inculcate. 

It  appears,  then,  that  Progressive  Orthodoxy  sharply  antagonizes 
the  Creed  of  the  Seminary,  in  denying  that  the  Son  of  God  alone 
made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  men  ;  in  teaching  that  the  only 


70 

vicariousness  or  substitution  in  the  atonement,  is  that  of  the  race 
with  Christ  in  it,  for  the  race  imthout  Christ  in  it;  in  holding  to 
the  theory,  that  God  is  propitiated  not  chiefly,  if  at  all,  on  the 
ground  of  Christ's  obedience  unto  death,  but  on  the  ground  that 
the  incarnate  Christ,  by  his  vital  union  with  men,  has  imparted  to 
them  powers  for  repentance  and  holiness,  and  so  given  them  an 
importance  and  value  in  the  sight  of  God  which  they  would  not 
otherwise  have  had.  Also  Progressive  Orthodoxy  antagonizes  the 
Creed  irreconcilably  in  maintaining  that  the  atonement  consists 
essentially  and  chiefly,  not  in  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ, 
but  in  his  organic  and  vital  union  with  men  through  his  humanity, 
making  it  more  proper  to  speak  of  Christ's  atoning,  vicarious  and 
propitiatory  union  with  men,  than  of  his  atoning,  vicarious  and 
propitiatory  sufferings  and  death. 

5.  To  complete  this  argument  in  support  of  our  sixth  complaint, 
there  should  now  be  added  a  Jffth  statement,  to  the  effect,  that 
Progressive  Orthodoxy  antagonizes  the  Seminary  Creed  in  certain 
inferences  which  it  draws  from  the  universality  of  the  atonement.^ 
To  sustain  this  declaration  properly,  it  would  be  necessary  to  dis- 
cuss the  whole  question  of  the  legality  of  teaching  on  Andover 
Foundations  the  dogma  of  a  probation  after  death.  This  large 
topic  has  been  assigned  to  one  of  my  associates.  It  is  not  proper 
for  me  to  go  far  upon  his  ground. 

I  may  say,  however,  that  the  question  raised  in  connection  with 
subjects  now  discussed  by  me,  is,  do  the  Constitution  and  Statutes 
of  the  Seminar}'  allow  a  Professor  to  hold  and  teach  the  dogma, 
as  an  inference  from  the  universality  of  the  atonement,  and  of  the 
headship  of  Christ  in  the  human  race,  that  all  men  sooner  or  later, 
if  not  in  this  world  then  in  Hades,  will  have  the  historic  Christ 
preached  and  offered  to  them  as  a  Saviour?  This  question  we  an- 
swer emphatically  in  the  negative,  and  for  several  reasons. 

1.  That  there  is  to  be  a  gracious  probation  under  the  gospel  of 
Christ  in  Hades,  for  those  who  have  not  known  him  in  this  world, 
is  not  a  legitimate  inference  from  the  universality  of  the  atone- 
ment. The  conclusion  does  not  follow  from  the  premise.  The 
statement  is  made  [Pi^og.  Orth.  p.  64]  that  "Atonement,  that  is, 

1  In  reading  this  paper  before  the  Board  of  Visitors,  I  interjected  at  this  point,  in  an  ex- 
tempore way,  a  line  of  argument  aarainst  the  legitimacj-  of  drawing  from  the  universality  of 
the  atonement,  and  of  the  alleged  headship  of  Christ  in  the  human  race,  the  inference  of  a 
probation  after  death,  and  of  teaching  that  inference  in  the  Andover  Seminary.  I  now  pre- 
sent in  printed  form,  and  with  more  clearness  and  fulness,  the  argument  which  was  then 
outlined.  — J.  W.  W. 


H 


71 

the  gospel,  is  universal,  absolute."  These  terms  are  not  defined. 
If  they  mean,  that  in  the  atonement  abundant  provision  is  made 
for  the  salvation  of  all  men,  then  it  is  true  that  the  atonement  is 
universal,  absolute.  But  by  no  means  does  it. necessarily  follow 
from  such  absoluteness  of  the  atonement,  that  all  men  will  some- 
time, if  not  in  this  life  then  in  the  next,  have  knowledge  of  the 
historic  Christ ;  for  whether  they  will,  or  will  not,  have  such  knowl- 
edge, is  conditioned  upon  things  not  involved  in  the  absoluteness 
of  the  atonement.  Nor  are  we  to  conclude  that  all  men,  who  in 
this  life  have  no  knowledge  of  Christ,  are  lost;  for  such  a  conclu- 
sion is  contradicted  by  innumerable  instances  in  which  members  of 
the  race,  as  we  have  abundant  reason  to  believe,  have  been  saved 
without  any  such  knowledge.  Such  deductions  from  the  absolute- 
ness of  the  atonement,  or  from  the  universality  of  Christ's  liead- 
ship  in  the  race,  are  unwarranted  and  false.  And  the  laws  of  the 
Seminaiy  do  not  allow  false  reasoning  and  teaching  on  the  part  of 
the  Professors. 

2.  Moreover  we  affirm,  that  so  long  as  the  doctrines  of  Election 
and  Effectual  Calling  remain  in  the  Creed,  the  notion  of  a  probation 
in  Hades  cannot  rightfully  be  held  or  taught,  either  as  an  infer- 
ence or  under  any  other  name,  by  any  Professor  in  Andover  .Sem- 
inary. The  Founders  took  the  statement  of  these  doctrines  from 
the  Westminster  Divines,  and  understood  them  as  those  Divines 
understood  them.  The  doctrine  of  Election  is,  that  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  human  race  who  are  to  be  saved,  were  elected  of  God 
to  salvation  from  all  eternity.  But  how  is  this  election  to  be  made 
effectual?  By  the  effectual  calling  of  the  elect.  And  none  but 
the  elect  are  to  be  effectually  called.  The  Westminster  Divines 
say  expressly,  '"All  the  elect,  and  they  only,  are  effectually  called." 
What  follows  the  effectual  calling  of  all  who  are  elected  to  be 
saved?  •'  They  who  are  effectually  called,  do,  m  this  life,  partake 
of  justification,  adoption,  and  sanctification,  and  the  several  bene- 
fits which  do  either  accompany  or  flow  from  them."  Thus  says 
the  Andover  Creed.  Then  all  of  the  human  race,  who  are  ever  to 
be  saved,  are  effectually  called,  justified  and  adopted  in  this  life. 
Other  benefits  follow,  some  of  which  reach  on  through  eternity. 
But  that  does  not  change  the  fact  that,  according  to  the  Creed, 
all  members  of  the  race,  who  are  ever  to  be  saved,  are  called,  jus- 
tified and  adopted  in  this  life.  How  many  then  will  remain  to  be 
called  and  justified  in  Hades?  Not  one.  And  if  no  one  can  be 
effectually  called  and  justified  in  Hades,  no  one  can  have  opportu- 


72 

nity  to  be  saved  there.  Prof.  Smyth  in  his  elaborate  and  lengthy 
discussion  upon  these  Creed-statements,  fearing  after  all  that 
they  do  really  cut  off  all  expectation  and  forbid  all  belief,  that  any 
sinner  will  be  effectually  called  in  the  next  world,  in  his  despera- 
tion, ventured  the  remarkable  affirmation,  that  still  God  may  se- 
cure to  some  of  the  impenitent  in  the  future  state  the  preaching 
of  the  gospel,  even  though  he  knows  that  not  one  of  them  can  be 
saved.  This  suggestion  is  shocking.  Is  God  a  deceiver?  Will 
he  mock  men  in  Hades?  Never.  The  Professor  cannot  in  this 
way  save  even  the  shadow  of  a  shadow  of  his  darling  theory  that 
the  great  missionary  fields  are  not  in  this  world,  but  in  that  world 
in  which  Dives  suffered,  nor  the  shadow  of  a  shadow  of  his  pre- 
tended right  to  teach  such  a  theory  on  Audover  Foundations. 

The  location  in  the  Creed  of  its  statement  of  the  doctrine  of 
Effectual  Calling  is  significant.  It  immediately  precedes  its  es- 
chatological  statements.  We  quote  from  the  Creed:  ''I  believe 
.  .  .  that  they  who  are  effectually  called,  do  in  this  life  partake  of 
justification,  adoption  and  sanctification,  and  the  several  benefits, 
which  do  either  accompany  or  flow  from  them  :  that  the  souls  of 
believers  are  at  their  death  made  perfect  in  holiness,  and  do  imme- 
diately pass  into  glory ;  .  .  .  but  that  the  wicked  will  awake  to 
shame  and  everlasting  contempt,  and  with  devils  be  plunged  into 
the  lake  that  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone  for  ever  and  ever." 

The  collocation  of  these  doctrinal  statements  shows,  that  in  the 
belief  of  the  Founders  "the  souls  of  believers"  are  "the  effect- 
ually called,"  "God's  elect,"  "the  righteous."  that  is.  all  who 
are  ever  to  be  saved.  All  these  "  are  at  their  death  made  per- 
fect," and  "immediately  pass  into  glory."  And  after  all  these 
are  at  their  death  made  perfect  and  then  glorified,  how  many  will 
remain  to  be  effectually  called  and  made  perfect  in  Hades?  None. 
Only  the  wicked,  or  non-elect,  will  be  left,  not  one  of  whom, 
according  to  the  Creed,  can  ever  be  effectually  called  and  saved 
beyond  this  life.  Thus  intensely  repugnant  to  this  Symbol  of 
Faith  is  even  the  insinuation  of  2JOSt-mortem  opportunities  for 
repentance  and  salvation. 

o.  Again,  we  affirm,  that  no  Professor  in  Audover  Seminary 
can  hold  and  teach  the  dogma  of  a  probation  after  death,  as  an 
inference,  or  under  any  other  name,  and  be  true  to  his  promise, 
made  in  taking  the  Creed,  that  he  will  oppose  Universalism. 

The  Founders  in  pledging  every  Professor  to  oppose  Univer- 
salism had   prominently  in  view  a  particular  type  of   that  error. 


73 

When  the  Seminary  was  founded,  the  Father  of  American  Uni- 
versalism,  the  Rev.  John  Murray,  was  living  in  Boston.  He  died 
in  1815.  For  fourteen  years  he  had  been  the  minister  of  a  Uni- 
versalist  society  in  Gloucester.  He  was  installed  pastor  of  a 
society  in  Boston  in  1793,  and  there  preached  as  long  as  he  was 
able  to  labor,  about  sixteen  years.  He  was  preaching  there  the 
very  year,  1807,  in  which  this  Seminar}-  was  founded.  He  was 
a  famous  man  in  his  day.  He  preached  in  all  parts  of  the  coun- 
try, and  through  his  preaching  and  published  writings,  his  views 
were  widely  disseminated.  He  was  a  man  who  attracted  the 
attention  of  all  ministers  and  theologians.  The  Founders  of  this 
Seminary  must  have  kuowu  him,  as  the  public  knew  him.  They 
knew  of  his  character,  his  writings,  his  beliefs,  and  his  abounding 
lal>ors  in  introducing  and  establishing  Uuiversalism.  His  was  the 
type  of  Uuiversalism  which  prevailed  in  this  country  when  this 
Seminary  was  founded. 

Now  what  were  his  beliefs,  and  his  methods  of  supporting  them  ? 
The  radical  and  formative  principles  of  his  theology  were  identical 
with  those  of  Progressive  Orthodoxy.  [^Letters  and  SJcetches  of 
Sermons.  Three  vols.  By  John  Murray.  Also  Life  of  Rev. 
John  Murray.  With  Notes  and  Appendix.  By  Rev.  L.  S.  Everett.'\ 
He  continually  preached  these  three  doctrines,  the  universality  of 
Christ's  headship  in  the  human  race  ;  a  universal  atonement  made 
by  Christ  in  organic  and  vital  union  with  every  man  ;  and  a  final, 
universal,  Christian  judgment ;  that  is,  a  judgment  administered 
by  Christ  under  the  gospel  and  in  personal,  living  union  with  all 
men.  From  those  universalities  he  drew  inferences  after  the  man- 
ner of  Progressive  Orthodoxy.  His  methods  of  reasoning,  and  his 
arguments  were  the  same  as  those  of  the  modern  Progressive 
Divines  at  Andover.  He  reasoned  continually  from  the  absolute- 
ness and  universalitj'  of  the  attributes  of  God.  He  did  not  use 
the  word  absoluteness,  but  did  use  its  equivalents.  He  made 
large  use  of  the  terms  universal  and  universality.  He  also  magni- 
fied with  rare  eloquence  of  language  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of 
God.  It  was  impossible  for  him  to  write  many  pages  without  say- 
ing something,  and  with  the  greatest  emphasis,  about  "  the  Sou  of 
Man,"  "the  Head  of  the  race,"  "the  second  Adam."  On  the 
essential  doctrines  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  of  the  deity 
of  Christ  incarnate,  and  of  his  sacrificial  atonement,  he  was  far 
more  orthodox  than  are  most  of  the  present  Professors  at  Andover. 
But  the  doctrine  of  the  universality  of  Christ's  atonement  was  his 


74 

chief  joy.  He  could  never  tire  of  preaching  it,  or  talking  of  it. 
He  was  always  reasoning  from  such  divinely  recorded  facts  as 
these:  "He  tasted  death  for  ever?/ man."  "God  was  in  Christ 
reconciling  the  ivorld  unto  himself."  "  He  is  the  propitiation  for 
the  sins  of  the  tchole  ivorld. ' '  Christ  is  ' '  the  Lamb  of  God  that 
taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  ivorld."  He  "  died  for  all,"  and  "  is 
the  Saviour  of  the  ivorld."  From  this  universality  of  the  atone- 
ment he  was  ever  arguing  that  all  men  will  sometime  and  some- 
where know  Christ ;  if  not  in  this  life,  then  in  the  next.  He 
preached  that  no  man  can  be  consciously  or  experimentally  saved 
without  knoivledge  of  Christ.  Sinful  man,  dying  impenitent  and 
unbelieving,  can  have  no  rest  of  soul,  his  conscience  will  lash  him, 
and  he  will  be  under  condemnation  and  torment  in  Hades,  until 
Christ  is  presented  to  him.  Only  when,  in  view  of  the  Saviour  of 
sinners,  he  repents  and  believes,  can  he  be  rescued  from  the 
appalling  effects  of  his  sins,  and  feel  the  peace  of  God. 

Whatever  subject  this  Father  of  American  Universalism  dis- 
cussed, he  was  sure  to  come  round,  at  last,  to  his  pet  theme,  the 
universality  of  the  gospel,  and  what  he  believed  to  be  its  logical 
implications.  He  had  these  on  the  brain.  In  reading  many  a 
page  of  his  voluminous  writings,  one  can  easily  imagine  that  he  is 
reading  an  editorial  in  the  Andover  Revieio.  Much  of  his  phrase- 
ology was  the  same  as  that  employed  by  those  who  now  advocate 
similar  views,  and  use  the  same  arguments.  As  to  the  precise 
time  beyond  death  when  Christ  will  be  revealed  to  all  men.  he 
was  not  positive.  He  used  to  say,  as  the  Andover  Professors 
now  say,  that  as  to  the  times  and  seasons  he  was  not  abso- 
lutely certain.  But  at  some  period  beyond  death,  he  was  sure, 
Christ,  in  his  redeeming  love  and  mighty  power  to  save,  would 
be  made  known  to  all  men.  He  was  strongly  inclined  to  believe 
that  this  "period,"  as  he  called  it,  will  be  that  of  the  general 
judgment. 

Upon  the  question,  therefore,  of  opportunity  for  all  men,  either 
in  this  life  or  the  next,  to  know  Christ  and  be  saved  by  him,  the 
Andover  Professors  and  John  Murray  are  in  perfect  accord.  The 
dogma  that  there  is  to  be  a  probation  after  death,  the  Progres- 
sive Divines  of  to-day  as  truly  hold  and  teach  as  did  the  "  pro- 
gressive "  Father  of  American  Universalism  one  hundred  years 
ago.  This  belief  of  the  present  Andover  Professors  was  an  essen- 
tial and  dominant  part  of  that  very  Universalism  which  was 
preached  by  its  aljlest  advocate  in  Boston,  through  New  Englaud, 


75 


in  the  States  of  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania,  at  the 
very  time  when,  and  for  a  quarter  of  a  century  before,  Andover 
Seminarv  was  founded. 


We  have  now,  as  we  believe,  amply  substantiated  four  of  our 
Complaints  against  some  of  the  beliefs  and  teachings  of  Prof. 
Egbert  C.  Smyth,  D.D.  We  think  we  have  shown  conclusively,  by 
evidence  and  argument,  that  the  Professor,  in  accepting  and  pro- 
mulgating the  New  Theology,  or  Progressive  Orthodoxy,  believes, 
maintains  and  inculcates : 

I.  That  the  Bible  is  not  the  "only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,"  but  is  fallible  and  untrustworthy  even  in  some  of  its  reli- 
gious teachings. 

II.  That  Christ,  in  the  days  of  his  humiliation,  was  a  finite 
being,  limited  in  all  his  attributes,  capacities  and  attainments :  in 
other  words,  was  not  "  God  and  Man." 

III.  That  no  man  has  power  or  capacity  to  repent  without  knowl- 
edge of  God  in  Christ. 

VI.  That  the  atonement  of  Christ  consists  essentially  and  chiefly 
in  his  becoming  identified  with  the  human  race  in  his  incarnation, 
in  order  that,  by  his  union  with  men.  He  might  endow  them  with 
power  to  repent,  and  thus  impart  to  them  an  augmented  value  in 
the  view  of  God,  and  so  render  God  propitious  towards  them. 

We  also  submit,  that  we  have  proved,  that  all  these  beliefs,  theo- 
ries and  speculations  are  held,  maintained  and  inculcated  by  the 
Professor,  in  utter  violation  of  the  Constitution  and  Statutes  of 
the  Seminary,  and  in  sharp  antagonism  to  the  requirements  of  the 
Seminary  Creed. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Board  of  Visitors,  —  I  have  said  what  I  have 
largely  because  of  my  responsibility  as  a  Trustee.  It  is  not  in  my 
heart  to  injure  in  any  respect,  or  in  the  least  degree,  any  Professor 
in  the  Seminary.  But  what  right  have  our  two  Boards  to  disre- 
gard the  known  will  of  the  Founders,  and  prove  ourselves  false  to 
a  large,  public  and  sacred  trust,  in  the  interest  personal  and  pri- 
vate of  a  few  men  ?  We  have  a  trust  committed  to  us,  one  of  the 
smallest  items  of  which  is  a  million  and  a  half  of  property.  The 
interests  committed  to  us  of  sound  theological  learning,  of  the  true 
gospel,  and  of  the  Kingdom  of  Clirist  are  immeasurable.  Now 
what  right  have  we  to  give  consent  to  a  breach  of  this  great  trust, 
out  of  regard  to  the  interest,  or  the  assumed  right,  of  the  Profess- 


76 

ors  in  their  salaries?  If  the  learned  counsel  of  the  Professor 
could  defend  the  right  of  their  client  to  his  salary,  could  they  also 
defend  our  Boards  of  Trustees  and  Visitors  against  the  eharse  of 
committing  an  immeasurable  crime,  if  we  allow  the  Seminar}'  and 
all  its  future  evangelical  interests  and  influence  to  be  sacrificed  to 
the  personal  and  temporary  convenience  of  half  a  dozen  men? 

It  is  a  smaller  matter,  and  yet  worthy  of  our  notice,  that  the 
departure  of  Professors  in  our  Seminar}'  from  the  faith  which  the 
Institution  was  founded  to  maintain,  is  no  longer  concealed.  It 
has  become  notorious.  The  reputation  of  the  Seminary  is  suffer- 
ing. The  number  of  students  is  greatly  diminished.  Indeed  the 
number  was  never  so  small  in  the  history  of  the  Institution,  as  it 
has  been  since  the  New  Departure  began.  Never  was  the  Semi- 
nary so  well  endowed  for  a  large  work,  j'et  never  was  it  doing  a 
work  so  small,  and  of  such  a  kind,  as  it  has  been  doing  since  the 
Seminary  year,  1881-82.  Thoughtful  and  honest  men  are  looking 
on  aghast.  The  public  conviction  is  that  there  is  a  great  breach  of 
trust  here. 

Andover  Seminary  was  founded  by  men  who  were  moved  by 
indignation  at  the  alleged  perversion  of  funds  at  Cambridge.  Mr. 
HoUis  provided  that  the  Hollis  Professor  should  be  an  ' '  orthodox  ' ' 
man.  But  no  one  can  tell  exactly  what  he  meant  by  an  orthodox 
man.  He  did  not  define  his  meaning  by  preparing  an  elaborate 
Creed.  Very  little  is  known  of  Mr.  Hollis,  or  of  the  type  of  his 
orthodoxy.  But  the  Founders  of  Andover  Seminary  took  eight 
months  to  define  what  they  meant  by  an  orthodox  man.  Moreover 
the  Hollis  Fund  was  small.  Yet  many  regarded  the  alleged  per- 
version of  that  small  sum  as  infamous.  Must  a  similar  infani}'  be 
attached  to  Andover,  and  become  as  much  more  notorious  in 
history  as  the  funds  here  are  larger?  Spotless  should  be  the  repu- 
tation of  a  Theological  Seminary.  This  sacred  Institution  is  edu- 
cating young  men  to  be  put  in  trust  with  the  gospel  of  Christ. 
They  should  have  before  them  constantly  an  example  of  the  most 
scrupulous  honesty  on  the  part  of  the  Professors  in  suV)scribiug  to 
the  Creed  and  fulfilling  promises  ;  and  also  of  the  stanchest  fidelity 
to  trusts  in  all  the  management  of  this  Christian  Institution  under 
its  Boards  of  Trustees  and  Visitors.  Questions  are  asked,  and 
hints  are  given  in  the  public  prints,  secular  as  well  as  religious,  to 
which  our  two  Boards  cannot  longer  be  indifferent.  The  Alumni  of 
the  Seminary  are  alarmed  and  pained.  Remarks  are  often  made 
in  private  which  make  every  friend  of  Andover  blush  for  shame. 


I 


I 


77 

Other  similar  judgments  have  been  publicly  pronounced.  I  make 
no  charge  of  conscious  dishonesty  against  anybody.  But  the  posi- 
tion which  the  Professors  have  taken  is  morally  indefensible. 
They  cannot  stand  where  thej'  are  in  the  face  of  honest  men. 
Nor  —  I  may  say  it  in  this  presence  without  ofifence,  for  I  offend 
raj'self  if  anybovly,  in  saying  it  —  nor  can  the  Board  of  Trustees, 
or  the  Board  of  Visitors,  stand  behind,  and  in  sujiport  of,  these 
Professors  any  longer  in  the  face  of  honest  men.  For  one  I  can- 
not do  it,  and  I  will  not  do  it,  without  uttering,  as  I  now  do.  before 
this  Board,  before  the  world,  and  l>efore  heaven,  my  solemn  pro- 
test against  this  monstrous  wrong.  This  affair  has  become  scanda- 
lous. But  is  Andover  to  be  made  infamous  ?  Is  her  very  name  — 
so  dear  to  thousands,  and  so  long  a  symbol  of  purity  —  now  to  be 
blackened?  Is  her  honor,  till  recently  borne  aloft  fair  and  spot- 
less, to  be  henceforth  trailed,  torn,  and  trodden  in  the  dirt,  drag- 
gled in  the  wake  of  a  gigantic  breach  of  trust  ?  These  questions 
can  be  avoided  no  longer.  They  must  be  answered,  and  answered 
now. 

With  you,  Gentlemen  of  the  Board  of  Visitors,  is  the  authority 
to  decide  the  issue  raised.  And,  therefore,  I  appeal  to  you. 
Others  present  will  give  their  own  views  of  the  case,  and  present 
their  own  pleas.  For  myself,  in  the  name  of  the  Founders  of  this 
sacred  and  noble  Institution,  so  far  as  I  may  be  permitted  to  repre- 
sent them,  in  the  name  of  all  but  the  smallest  fraction  of  the 
Alumni,  lx)th  the  living  and  the  sainted  :  in  the  name  of  common 
honesty  and  honorableness  ;  in  the  name  of  divine  truth  and  right- 
eousness ;  and,  al30ve  all.  in  the  name  of  Him  whose  glorious  Gospel 
and  Kingdom  Andover  was  founded  to  defend  and  to  extend  over 
the  world  —  I  do  solemnly  protest  against  the  theological  revolu- 
tion now  in  process,  and  pushed  forward  in  violation  of  sacred 
promises,  in  defiance  of  deeds  of  trust,  of  the  Creed  itself,  and  of 
the  Constitution  and  Statutes  of  the  Seminary. 


ARGUMENT  OF   REV.   0.   T.   LANPHEAR,   D.D. 


Gentlemen  of  the  Board  of  Visitors : 
1.  I  ASK  your  attention  to  the  seventh  charge  of  the  list,  viz.  : 

We  charge  that  Prof.  Egbert  C.  Smyth  holds,  maintains  and  inculcates : 
that,  The  Trinity  is  modal,  or  monarchian,  and  not  a  Trinity  of  Persons. 

We  do  not  mean  to  say  that  Progressive  Orthodoxy  teaches  the 
monarchian  or  the  modal  theory  of  the  Trinity,  but  it  teaches  what 
is  nearer  to  the  monarchian  or  the  modal  theory  of  the  Trinity 
than  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  It  denies  that  Christ 
is  the  immutable  God,  and  thus  is  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  expressed  in  the  Creed.  It  is  not  so 
utterly  irreconcilable  with  the  monarchian  or  Arian  Theory.  The 
Andover  Creed  states  that  '•  in  the  Godhead  are  three  Persons,  the 
Fathei',  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost :  and  that  these  Three  are 
one  God,  the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power  and  glor}'."  It 
also  states  that  "God  is  a  Spirit,  infinite,  eternal,  and  unchange- 
able in  his  being,  wisdom,  power,  holiness,  justice,  goodness  and 
truth." 

Now  the  Andover  Creed  has  been  explained  from  the  beginning 
as  meaning  that  the  Father  maj^  say  of  himself  '•  I  am  God  immu- 
table, infinite.  The  Son  may  say  the  same  of  himself,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  may  say  the  same  of  himself."  Xow  the  Progressive 
Orthodoxy  denies  that  Christ  while  on  the  eartli  could  say  of  him- 
self, I  am  God  immutable.  In  both  his  human  and  divine  nature 
he  was  once  ignorant.  He  was  finite  in  all  his  attributes.  Heuee. 
if  he  ever  was  infinite,  he  was  changed  into  the  finite.  If  he  was 
changed  once,  he  might  be  changed  again.  He  is  not  immutable. 
Then  there  is  not  a  Trinity  of  three  immutable  Persons  or  hypos- 
tases. These  three  hypostases  may  be  modal,  but  they  cannot  lie 
each  of  them  immutable,  for  one  of  them  has  been  finite  in  power 


79 

and  wistlom.  G<xl  may  exist  as  one  infinite  Person,  and  tliis  is 
the  mouarchian  theory,  but  he  cannot  exist  as  three  infinite  and 
immutal)le  hypostases  according  to  the  Calvinistic  theory.  Hence 
the  modal,  or  nionarehiau  tlieory  may  be  trae,  but  the  Calvinistic 
theory  cannot  be  true. 

"What  we  have  to  say  in  sustaining  this  charge,  we  desire  for  the 
sake  of  brevity,  to  put  in  a  series  of  propositions  : 

I.  The  Progressive  Orthodoxy  docs  not  in  so  many  words  deny 
that  there  are  three  hypostases  in  the  Godhead,  the  same  in  sub- 
stance and  equal  in  power  and  glory. 

II.  The  Progressive  Orthodoxy  affirms  that  while  Christ  was  on 
earth.  He  was  not  infinite  in  power  and  wisdom,  and  was  not 
immutable. 

[Prog.  Orth.  pp.  227,  228]  :  — 

"But  our  implicit  acceptance  of  Christ's  teachings  is  an  essential  part  of 
Christian  faith."  Yes,  and  has  evangelical  Biblical  science  come  into 
antagonism  with  any  teaching  of  Christ  in  its  assertions  about  the  compo- 
sition or  structure  of  the  Old  Testament?  "  He  has  ascribed  the  Pentateuch 
to  Moses,  and  the  later  chapters  of  Isaiah  to  the  prophet  called  by  that 
name."  Xo,  He  has  made  no  such  ascription.  He  has  in  quotation  fol- 
lowed the  Jewish  habit  of  naming  the  book  from  its  reputed  author.  It  is  a 
fair  question  as  to  whether,  in  the  act  of  speaking,  the  person  of  the  author 
was  before  his  mind.  Certainly  He  had  no  thought  of  making  the  fact  of 
authorship  a  part  of  his  teaching.  One  might  as  well  claim  that  a  minister 
commits  himself  to  the  view  that  all  the  book  ascribed  to  Isaiah  was  written 
by  that  prophet,  in  saying  to  a  congregation  that  he  will  read  a  chapter  from 
the  book  of  Isaiah.  And  even  if  one  is  convinced  that  our  Lord  accepted 
the  traditional  view  of  the  authorship  of  the  books  in  question,  he  cannot 
hold  that  His  authority  is  committed  to  that  view  until  he  has  satisfied  him- 
self that  Christ  claimed  to  be  omniscient  during  the  days  of  his  humiliation, 
—  a  belief  irreconcilable  with  his  own  declaration  that  He  knew  neither  the 
day  nor  the  hour  of  his  second  coming. 

lAndover  Review.  May  1886,  p.  522]  :  — 

The  limitations  to  which  his  humanity  subjected  Him  are  recognized  ; 
but  as  the  glorified  Christ,  He  is  delocalized,  luilimited,  is  with  his  Church 
alway  unto  the  end  of  the  world. 

\_Prog.  Orth.  p.  32.  as  cited  under  V.] 

III.  After  Christ  ascended  to  heaven  this  second  hypostasis  be- 
came infinite  in  power  and  wisdom.  Although  ignorant  on  earth, 
he  was  not  ignorant  in  heaven. 

[_A)tdorer  Peciev:,  May  188G,  p.  522,  as  cited  under  II.] 


80 

IV.  Progressive  Orthodoxy  says,  the  three  hypostases  are  not 
three  persons  in  a  philosophical  sense,  but  are  only  one  person. 

\_Prog.  Orth.  p.  59]  :  — 

Christ  brings  God  the  Person  to  man  the  iDerson,  and  in  such  manner  that 
God  is  known  as  the  God  of  holy  love,  the  loving  and  holy  Father. 

In  the  answer  filed  under  Particular  7.  —  Prof.  Smj^th  saj's  :  — 

If  by  the  phrase  "Trinity  of  Persons"  is  meant  that  the  one  absolute 
person,  God,  exists  as  three  persons;  person  being  used  in  each  member  of 
the  sentence  with  the  same  meaning,  I  admit  that  I  do  not  hold  such  a 
doctrine. 

No  exception  is  here  taken  to  this  answer.  It  is  cited  to  show 
that  he  believes  in  "the  one  absolute  person  God,"  as  stated  in 
this  proposition. 

V.  According  to  Progressive  Orthodoxy  the  second  of  these 
hypostases  before  the  Incarnation,  was  not  a  person  in  the  philo- 
sophical sense. 

\_Prog.  Orth.  pp.  28,  29,  30,  31,  32]  :  — 

1.  We  start,  therefore,  with  a  conception  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ 
as  created  by  the  Word  and  Son  of  God  for  the  realization  in  finite  form 
of  that  which  is  his  own  i^ersonal  characteristic,  as  created  to  express  his 
truth  and  grace,  and  to  share  with  Him  in  his  Father's  love.  In  its  very  idea 
and  essence  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  adapted  to  such  a  purpose.  It  is 
finite,  and  the  Word  who  created  it  is  infinite.  But  we  do  not  move  in  our 
thinking,  if  we  think  correctly  on  this  subject,  merely  on  this  plane  of  con- 
trasts. We  may  not  forget  them,  but  they  are  only  a  part  of  the  truth. 
The  divine  and  human  natures  in  Christ  are  essentially  related  to  each  other. 
The  liuman  nature  is  the  divine  nature  huinanli/  e.cjjre.s.si'd  and  realized. 
The  one  should  be  as  closely  connected  with  the  other  in  our  conception  as  a 
word  with  the  thought  it  utters.  The  thought  is  unexpressed  without  the 
word.  The  word  is  empty  save  as  it  is  the  bearer  of  the  thought.  The 
relation  is  as  intimate  as  this,  bi;t  it  is  of  a  higher  kind.  A  word  is  a  breath, 
a  transient,  fugitive  thing.  Christ's  human  nature  is  a  real  image  of  the 
divine  Word.  That  Word  has  personality.  His  word  which  He  utters  in. 
creating  the  human  soul  of  Christ  is  personal.  The  human  nature  of  Christ 
is  in  finite  form  the  personal  word  of  that  eternal  Word.  It  is  not  a  foreign 
nature.  If  it  were  we  could  not  possibly  retain  at  once  its  integrity  and  its 
personal  union  with  the  divine  nature.  The  new  and  fundamental  thought 
in  modern  Christology  is  the  essential  relation  of  the  two  natures,  so  that 
either  can  know  and  realize  itself  in  the  other.  This  being  apprehended, 
the  standing  difficulty  with  the  doctrine  is,  if  not  removed,  so  reduced  that 
it  ceases  to  be  an  objection. 

2.  This  brings  us  to  our  second  point,  the  act  of  incarnation  as  constitu- 
tive of  the  Unity  of  Christ's  Person.     We  liave,  as  elements  of  the  union,. 


81 

the  divine  nature  as  possessed  by  the  Logos,  or  in  that  mode  of  bciui:  wliich 
characterizes  his  existence,  and  an  ideally  perfect  humanity.  Such  a  human 
nature  must  be  personal.  The  divine  nature  in  the  Logos  also  is  personal. 
Yet  neither  in  itself  is  a  person.  The  Logos  is  a  person  only  with,  in,  ami 
through  the  Father  and  the  Spirit.  The  human  nature  is  a  person  only 
with,  in,  and  through  the  Logos.  The  central  jjoint  of  Christ's  personality 
falls  into  the  central  point  of  Absolute  Personality.  Otherwise  a  person 
would  be  the  object  of  supreme  worship  exterior  to  and  additional  to  the  one 
only  God.  Kecent  writers  who  have  derived  the  personality  of  Christ  from 
the  human  nature,  or  else  have  made  it  simply  a  resultant  of  the  union  of 
natures,  have  not  duly  guarded  this  point.  They  have  had  a  truth  at  heart, 
the  vindication  of  the  reality  of  Jesus's  humanity.  An  impersonal  human 
nature,  they  have  seen,  is  something  defective  and  unreal.  I'ut  in  recover- 
ing this  essential  truth,  it  is  not  necessary  to  go  to  either  of  the  extremes 
just  indicated.  The  constitutive  act  for  Christ's  Person  is  the  union  of  two 
natures.  One  of  these,  the  human,  is  only  potentially  personal,  and  is 
capable,  by  its  very  constitution,  of  entering  into  a  divine  life,  of  finding  the 
truth  of  its  existence  in  God.  The  other  is  a  particular  mode  of  the  divine 
being,  not  in  itself  a  person,  but  the  bearer  of  a  personal  principle,  and  capa- 
ble of  self-realization  in  a  human  life.  The  act  of  incarnation  is  the  union 
of  these  two. 

3.  The  self-consciousness  of  Jesus.  We  have  noticed  before  what  it  is  as 
disclosed  to  us  in  the  evangelical  narratives.  We  consider  it  now  in  its 
basis  and  necessary  form. 

All  our  experiences  arise  from  our  constitution  as  embodied  spirits,  and 
our  entire  consciousness  reflects  this  union  of  body  and  soul.  So  Christ's 
history  has  for  its  foundation  the  union  of  two  natures.  His  personality 
presupposes  this  union.  It  is  formative  for  his  life  and  consciousness,  ju>t 
as  the  constitiUion  of  the  soul  in  union  with  the  body  is  the  foundation  of 
its  history.  The  analogy  is  not  perfect,  but  in  both  cases  alike  two  elements 
without  confusion  or  loss  of  properties  are  so  united  as  to  be  the  germ  of  a 
development.  The  personality  of  Christ  existed  primarily  as  a  latent  poMcr, 
as  does  all  other  human  personality.  And  as  the  basis  was  complex,  so  the 
unfolding  consciousness;  never  simply  divine,  never  merely  huiuan;  never 
the  two  in  addition,  or  collocation,  or  separation,  the  one  remaining  unaf- 
fected by  the  other:  never  confused,  blended,  interchanged.  That  which  is 
divine  shines  in  and  through  what  is  human;  that  which  is  human  possesses 
and  therefore  can  reveal  what  is  divine.  It  is  like  the  union  in  physics  of 
force  and  matter,  only  without  there  being  on  either  side  inertia.  It  is  like 
the  union  of  reason  and  understanding  in  rational  thought,  only  it  is  far 
higher  than  a  harmony  of  faculties.  The  divine  nature  and  the  human  inter- 
penetrate each  the  other.  The  divine  informs  the  human.  The  human 
receives  and  expresses  the  divine.  The  one  in  condescending  love  and 
sympathy  makes  every  thing  belonging  to  the  other  its  own.  The  latter  ap- 
prehends whatever  the  former  has  as  its  own  good,  the  truth,  the  perfection 
in  which  it  finds  its  own  fulfilment.  And  of  this  process,  which  is  ever 
reciprocal,  there  is  in  consciousness  a  centre.  It  is  the  personality  of  tho 
creative  Word,  but  not  simply  this.  It  is  the  personality  of  the  created 
nattire,  but  not  merely  this.     It  is  the  one  as  affected  by  the  other.     It  is  the 


82 

latter  fulfilled  in  the  former.  It  is  that  point  of  rest  and  union,  and  there- 
fore of  life  and  power,  where  the  divine  nature  realizes  the  experiences  of 
the  human  as  its  own,  where  the  human  realizes  that  its  completeness  and 
perfection  are  in  God.  It  is  the  centre  of  a  divine-human  consciousness, 
and  this  personal  centre  is  the  God-Man. 

This  personality  was  not  fully  realized  in  the  beginning.  There  was  not 
only  growth  of  the  humanity  of  Jesus,  but  a  progressive  imion  with  the 
divine.  Here  is  the  truth  in  the  theories  of  the  Kenotists,  who  maintain 
that  the  "Word,  at  the  Incarnation,  laid  aside,  or  suspended  the  exercise  of, 
his  attributes  of  omniscience,  omnipotence,  and  the  like.  This  is  but  a 
clumsy  and  somewhat  violent  and  unethical  method  of  appropriating  certain 
undeniable  facts;  such  as  the  limitation  of  Jesus's  knowledge,  the  perfect 
human  reality  of  his  earthly  life,  the  veritable  growth  of  his  consciousness 
and  personality  from  the  moment  of  the  Incarnation.  The  Incarnation 
itself,  though  real  at  the  beginning,  was  also  a  process  which  had  steps  which 
the  records  of  Jesus's  life  enable  us  in  some  degree  to  trace  and  understand. 
At  every  stage  his  history  had  a  meaning  for  himself.  Xot  only  his  birth, 
but  his  visit  to  the  Temple,  his  baptism,  his  temptation,  transfiguration, 
crucifixion,  resurrection,  were  epochs  in  his  consciousness,  events  fraught 
with  meaning  and  new  powers  for  his  ovnx  Person. 

VI.  Progressive  Orthodoxy  says  that  the  second  of  these  hypos- 
tases took  to  himself  human  nature,  and  then  the  divine  nature 
and  the  human  nature  became  a  person  in  the  philosophical 
sense. 

[See  citations  under  V.,  also  Frog.  Orth.  pp.  22,  23]  :  — 

The  Word  became  flesh  not  at  Jesus's  baptism,  not  at  his  resurrection  or 
ascension,  but  this  was  the  beginning  of  his  life,  that  the  second  Person  of 
the  Trinity  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  man,  so  that  it  was  predicted  that  the 
holy  thing  which  should  be  born  should  be  called  the  Son  of  God,  and 
the  Son  of  the  Virgin  should  be  named  Immanuel ;  and  when  the  event  oc- 
curred it  was  announced  to  the  shepherds:  "  There  is  born  to  you  this  day 
.  .  .  a  Saviour  which  is  Christ  the  Lord;"  and  wise  men.  guided  by  the  star, 
blended  their  rejoicings  with  those  of  the  heavenly  host,  and  when  they  saw 
the  young  child  fell  down  and  worshipped  Him.  Make  of  these  accounts 
what  we  may,  they  are  the  fitting  beginning  of  the  historic  life  that  then  ai>- 
peared,  and  its  only  adequate  premise,  as  Origen  long  ago  discerned.  And 
if  we  pursue  the  narrative  in  either  of  the  Gospels  we  constantly  observe  the 
same  phenomena.  The  evidences  of  a  complete  human  nature  multiply  as 
we  read,  but  not  less  manifest  is  the  one  Person  who  is  the  centre  to  which 
all  attributes  and  acts  are  ever  referred:  and  so  wondroasly  adjusted  is  all 
this  that,  in  reviewing  the  history  of  the  reception  which  these  accounts  have 
received  from  the  great  mass  of  readers,  nothing  is  more  striking  and  nothing 
more  uniform  than  the  conviction  which  has  prevailed  that,  from  the  manger 
to  the  cross  and  from  the  cross  to  the  throne,  it  is  one  and  only  one  Person 
who  lived,  suffered,  died,  and  was  believed  to  have  risen  from  the  tomb  and 
to  have  ascended  on  hisjh. 


83 

VII.  Accordiug  to  this  representation  there  are  in  the  Godhead 
two  persons  in  the  philosophical  sense.  The  three  hypostases  form 
one  person,  and  the  second  hypostasis  with  the  human  nature 
united  form  another  person.  Jesus  Christ  having  a  divine  and 
human  nature  is  a  person  in  the  philosophical  sense  ;  but  the  Father 
In'  himself  is  not  a  person  in  the  philosophical  sense,  neither  is  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

VIII.  God  is  immutable,  but  Christ  having  a  divine  and  human 
nature  is  mutable.  God  is  omniscient,  but  Christ  having  a  divine 
and  human  nature  is  ignorant,  therefore  Christ  having  a  divine  and 
human  nature,  is  not  God. 

According  to  the  view  of  the  framers  of  the  Seminary  Creed  the 
union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures  in  the  person  of  Christ  was 
such  that  He  was  conscious  of  himself  as  human,  and  also  conscious 
of  himself  as  divine.  In  this  union  it  was  not  supposed  that  He 
lost  any  of  his  attributes  as  divine  ;  or  that  the  humanity  of  Christ 
lost  any  of  its  attributes.  Thus  he  could  speak  as  divine  and 
therefore  as  God,  Omniscient ;  or  He  could  speak  as  a  man  and 
therefore  ignorant  of  some  things.  But  Progressive  Orthodoxy 
does  not  allow  that  he  could  be  thus  conscious  of  himself,  or  that 
the  person  of  Christ  admits  of  such  a  distinction. 

IX.  The  Progressive  Orthodoxy  [pp.  227,  228  as  cited  under 
II.]  alludes  to  the  fact  that  Christ  while  on  earth  did  not  know 
the  time  of  his  second  coming.  The  allusion  implies  that  Christ 
in  both  his  divine  and  human  nature  was  ignorant  of  this  fact. 
Now  if  the  ichole  person  of  Christ  was  thus  ignorant  on  earth,  he 
certainlj'  was  not  thus  ignorant  before  he  came  to  the  earth.  Here 
then  was  a  wonderful  and  a  radical  change  from  his  divine  om- 
niscience to  a  small  degree  of  knowledge. 

Again  in  the  same  paragraph  [pp.  227,  228,]  the  same  volume 
implies  that  perhaps  Christ  during  his  earthly  residence  did  not 
know  who  wrote  the  Pentateuch.  Now  if  Christ  was  God  before 
the  incarnation,  he  had  an  agency  in  inspiring  the  author,  or 
authors  of  the  Pentateuch.  At  that  period  he  knew  the  authorship 
of  these  five  books.  If  at  a  subsequent  period  the  same  hypostasis 
did  not  know  tliis  authorship,  then  the  hypostasis  underwent  an 
essential  mutation  from  knowledge  to  ignorance,  and  was  not  while 
on  earth,  the  God  recognized  in  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary.  He 
was  a  pei-son  like  that  whom  the  Arians  recognize  as  the  Messiah. 

It  is  far  easier  to  reconcile  the  doctrine  of  the  Progressive  Or- 
thodoxy with  the  Ariau  doctrine,  than  with  the  Orthodox  Triuita- 


84 

nau  doctrine.  Tt  has  such  a  theory  with  regard  to  the  three 
hypostases  that  it  confounds  us,  and  we  do  not  know  but  the 
monarchian  or  modal  theor}'  is  the  true  one,  but  we  do  know  that 
the  Orthodox  theory  is  not  the  true  one,  if  the  book  is  correct. 

X.  Every  Professor  in  Audover  Seminarj'  makes  the  solemn . 
declaration,  that  he  will  maintain  the  truth  in  opposition  to  the 
Arians,  and  the  Sabellians  ;  but  the  Progressive  Orthodoxy  does 
not  oppose  the  Arians  and  the  Sabellians,  in  some  of  their  dis- 
tinctive views  regarding  Jesus  Christ  as  he  lived  upon  the  earth. 
It  favors  some  of  those  distinctive  views. 

XI.  The  Andover  Creed  states  that  the  three  hypostases  in  the 
Godhead  are  the  same  in  substance  and  equal  in  every  divine 
perfection. 

Now,  if  the  second  hypostasis  can  cease  to  be  infinite  in  power 
and  wisdom,  so.  for  aught  we  know,  can  the  first  and  the  third 
hypostases.  The  three  hypostases  may  become  finite  at  one  and 
the  same  time.  It  is  easy  to  see  that  all  such  ideas  diminish  the 
majesty  of  God,  and  we  know  that  the  founders  of  Andover 
Seminary  were  distinguished  for  their  exalted  views  of  the  three 
hypostases  whom  they  exalted  as  immutable  and  infinite  in  power 
and  wisdom  ;  it  is  also  easy  to  see  that  these  three  hypostases 
must  be  modal  rather  than  personal  in  the  biblical  sense.  Christ 
on  earth  could  not  have  said,  "  I  am  infinite,  I  am  omnipotent,  I  am 
omniscient."  Peter  could  not  properly  have  said  to  Him,  ''Thou 
knowest  all  things." 

If  the  three  hypostases  may  cease  to  be  infinite  —  since  if  the 
second  may,  all  may.  on  account  of  their  equality  :  so  that  there 
is  only  the  one  absolute  Person,  God  —  then  it  must  appear  that 
the  three  hypostases  do  not  denote  three  eternal,  ontological  dis- 
tinctions in  the  Godhead.  They  are  only  convenient  phrases  for 
describing  the  different  modes  of  God's  action  and  manifestation. 
But  this  is  the  modal  theory  of  Sabellius.  and  not  according  to 
the  Andover  Creed. 

There  is  a  tendency  in  Progressive  Orthodoxy  to  exalt  the  human 
in  Christ  unduly  liy  rationalistic  interpretation  [as  on  p.  Ill]  : 

The  question  back  of  all  is  as  old  as  the  gospel  itself.  It  was  first  asked 
by  our  Lord  wlien  He  inquired,  '"Who  do  men  saj- that  the  Sox  of  Max 
is '?"  As  of  old  the  answer  has  been  insutficient.  One  of  the  prophets,  an 
Elijah,  a  .Jeremiah,  one  sent  to  a  favored  part,  but  to  only  a  part  of  this 
sinful  world.  The  Master's  searching  question  comes  closer:  "  But  who  say 
ye  that  I  am  ?'"  The  answer  was  in  the  question  as  He  first  asked  it.  He. 
is  the  Sox  of  Max. 


85 

But  Peter  dkl  not  answer  the  question  as  first  asked,  but  he  said, 
''Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Sou  of  the  living  God,"  not  merely  the 
"  Son  of  Man."  And  Christ  blessed  Peter  for  his  answer,  declar- 
ing that  he  had  been  guided  in  that  answer  by  revelation  from  the 
Father.  The  excellence  of  Peter's  answer,  is.  that  it  brings  out 
both  the  human  aud  tlie  divine  nature  of  the  Lord  :  the  Christ,  the 
Messiah  the  Son  of  David  :  and  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  the 
Eternal  Sou  of  Go<.l.  So  Alford,  Lange  and  Schaff.  (Matth. 
IG  :  13-17.)  To  say  then  that  the  proper  answer  is,  that,  •'  He  is 
the  Son  of  Man,"  is  to  exalt  the  human  at  the  expense  of  the 
divine  ;  which  is  all  the  more  to  be  regretted  because  it  involves 
an  error  in  exegesis. 

XII.  As  the  Progressive  Orthodoxy  opposes  both  the  letter  and 
the  spirit  of  the  Andover  Creed  in  regard  to  the  person  of  Christ, 
so  it  opposes  the  Creed  in  regard  to  the  whole  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  ;  aud  it  favors  such  views  of  Christ  while  on  earth  as  are 
more  in  sympathy  with  Arianism  and  Sabelliauisra  than  with  Cal- 
vinism. It  breaks  down  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  immutable  divin- 
ity, and  thus  breaks  down  the  doctrine  of  the  Seminary  Creed  in 
regard  to  the  Trinity. 

XIII.  Progressice  Orthodoxy  favors  monarchianism  so  far  as  this, 
it  affirms  that  the  Godhead  consists  of  only  one  person,  and  that 
the  three  hypostases  were  not  during  Christ's  residence  on  earth 
all  of  them  immutable,  and  equal  to  each  other  in  i)ower.  "We  do 
not  deny  that  according  to  the  Ijook  the  divine  and  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  on  earth  formed  a  distinct  Person,  but  this  dis- 
tinct Person  who  died  on  the  cross  was  not  in  the  language  of  the 
Creed,  God,  infinite,  eternal,  and  unchangeable  in  his  being,  wis- 
dom, power.  We  think  that  the  volume  has  committed  a  funda- 
mental error  in  undertaking  to  explain  the  adorable  mj^steries  of 
the  Godhead. 

"We  therefore  claim  that  Prof.  Egbert  C.  Smyth,  as  being  the 
composer  of  Progressice  Orthodox>j  and  of  the  Andover  Recieic, 
does  hold,  maintain  and  inculcate  that  the  Trinity  is  modal,  or 
monarchian,  and  not  a  Trinity  of  Persons. 

2.  We  further  charge  that  Prof.  Eg]>ert  C.  Smyth,  holds,  main- 
tains and  inculcates,  that.  The  loorTc  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  chiefly 
confined  to  the  sphere  of  historic  Christianity. 

The  article  of  the  Seminary  Creed  which  every  professor  is 
required  to  subscribe  is  XXns  :  — 


86 

"  I  believe  that  regeneration  and  sanctification  are  effects  of  the  creating 
and  renewing  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  supreme  love  to  God  con- 
stitutes the  essential  difference  between  saints  and  sinners;  that  by  convin- 
cing us  of  our  sin  and  misery,  enlightening  our  minds,  working  faith  in  us, 
and  renewing  our  wills,  the  Holy  Spirit  makes  us  partakers  of  the  benefits 
of  redemption." 

To  show  that  in  Progressive  Orthodoxy  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  chiefly  confined  to  the  sphere  of  historic  Christianity  we 
quote  the  following  passages. 

[Prog.  Orth.  p.  116]  :  — 

For  the  sake  of  distinctness  we  state  our  position  in  the  following  postu- 
lates :  — 

1.  The  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  a  work  in  motive,  fulfils  and  makes 
effective  the  method  of  salvation  proposed  by  Christianity. 

2.  Historic  Christianity  alone  offers  sufficient  material  in  motive,  in  the 
life,  death,  and  resurrection  of  our  Lord,  for  the  natural  and  efficacious  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

[Prog.  Orth.  p.  119]:  — 

What  we  wish  to  affirm  and  maintain  is  simply  the  Scriptural  position  that 
Christianity  is  the  religion  of  motive,  a  fact  of  which  the  presence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  the  unmistakable  sign,  and  to  which  his  work  bears  perpetual 
testimony. 

[Prog.  Orth.  p.  123]  :  — 

As  the  coming  of  Christ  involved  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  even  to  the  disclo- 
sure of  his  personality,  the  designation  of  his  offices,  and  the  assurance  of  his 
abiding  presence  in  the  world,  so  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  seems  to  us  to  presup- 
pose the  new  facts,  the  new  relationships,  the  new  motives,  which  centre 
around  the  Person  of  Christ. 

[Prog.  Orth.  p.  121]  :  — 

What  we  know  as  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit  follows  and  depends  upon 
the  life,  death,  and  resurrection  of  our  Lord.  The  order  is  not  simply  that 
of  sequence:  it  is  that  of  dependence.  First  the  revelation  of  God  in  Christ, 
then,  and  in  consequence,  the  communication  of  the  life  of  God  through  the 
Spirit. 

\_Prog.  Orth.  p.  129]:  — 

We  conclude,  then,  that  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  distinctively  a 
Christian  work;  that  it  follows  in  the  order  of  dependence  upon  the  revela- 
tion of  God  in  Christ :  that  it  draws  its  argument  from  the  Person  and  work 
of  the  Redeemer:  and  that  it  proceeds  from  and  toward  Christ  in  the  re:ii'«  al 
ot  t!'.'^  life  of  til'  individual  and  in  the  renovation  of  society. 


87 

Now,  in  citing  these  passages,  we  admit  that  there  are  otlier 
passages,  in  which  the  presence  of  motive  in  the  facts  of  nature  is 
not  denied,  nor  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  use  of  these 
facts  ;  nor  the  existence  of  regenerate  life  outside  of  Christianity. 

But,  with  these  admissions,  we  say  that  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  cannot  in  truth  be  limited  in  any  manner  to  Historic  Chris- 
tianity ;  meaning  by  that,  the  life,  death  and  resurrection  of  our 
Lord :  — 

I.  We  argue  this  first,  from  the  fact  that  in  so  far  as  the  Holy 
Spirit  works  by  motive  He  works  by  Divine  Truth.  In  the  prayer 
of  our  Lord  for  the  sanctification  of  his  disciples,  he  said,  —  "  Sanc- 
tify them  through  thy  truth  ;  thy  word  is  truth  :  "  ^  i.e.,  the  whole 
AVord  of  God,  that  in  the  Old  Testament  as  well  as  that  in  the 
New.  —  In  the  19th  Psalm,  7th  verse,  it  is  said,  "The  law  of  the 
Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the  soul."  It  should  be  remembered, 
that  the  Bible  makes  no  distinction  between  conversion  and  regen- 
eration. The  Holy  Spirit  uses  the  whole  Word  of  God  as  motive, 
the  word  of  Law  as  well  as  the  word  of  Gospel.  In  making  the 
former  Scriptures  the  means  of  enlightening  the  authors  of  the  later 
Scriptures,  the  Holy  Spirit  established  the  continuity  of  his  own 
teaching  and  built  the  Church  ''  upon  the  foundation  of  the  Apos- 
tles and  Prophets,"  ^  amalgamating  the  two  foundations  into  one. 
So  St.  Paul  says  to  Timothy,  "  The  Holy  Scriptures  [of  the  Old 
Testament]  are  able  to  make  thee  wise  unto  salvation,  through  faith 
which  is  in  Jesus  Christ."  ^  The  force  of  the  expression  lies  in 
the  making  ivise.  The  Gospel,  Timothy  has  already  received  ;  the 
faith  in  Christ  Jesus,  he  already  has ;  and  therefore  he  is  in  actual 
possession  of  the  salvation  ;  but  the  tcisdom  appertaining  to  this 
salvation  he  is  to  seek  by  means  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

It  has  been  well  said  that  in  the  Old  Testament  there  is  the 
Promised  Christ ;  the  Typical  Christ ;  and  the  Christ  of  Prophecy : 
while  in  the  New  Testament  there  is  the  Christ  incarnate  of  the 
four  Gospels ;  the  preached  Christ  of  the  Acts ;  the  Doctrinal 
Christ  of  the  Epistles  ;  and  the  Christ  with  his  Church  triumphant 
in  the  Revelation.  There  is  the  Christ  of  the  Old  Testament  as 
well  as  the  Christ  of  the  New.  It  was  through  the  Old  Testament 
that  Clirist  taught  his  disciples  personally  after  his  resurrection. 
"He  expounded  unto  them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  con- 
cerning himself.     And  he  said  unto  them  ^  0  foolish  men  and  slow 

1  John  i;  :  17.  :  Eph.  -J  :  -10.  '  '2  Tiiu.  ^ :  1 J.  *  Luke  lii  :  27,-Jo-47. 


I 


88 

of  heart  to  believe  in  all  tlmt  the  prophets  have  spoken  !  Behoved 
it  not  the  Christ  to  suffer  these  things  and  to  enter  into  his  glory  ? 
And  beginning  from  IMoses  and  all  the  prophets,  he  interpreted  to 
them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning  himself."  Again 
"  he  said  unto  them  these  ^are  my  words  which  I  spake  unto  you, 
while  I  was  yet  with  you,  how  that  all  things  must  needs  be  ful- 
filled which  are  written  in  the  law  of  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  and 
the  Psalms  concerning  me.  Then  opened  he  their  mind  that  they 
might  understand  the  Scriptures :  and  he  said  unto  them  thus  it  is 
written,  that  the  Christ  should  suffer  and  rise  again  from  the  dead 
the  third  day." 

Now,  it  is  evident  that  that  which  the  Lord,  before  his  depart- 
ure, did  by  word  of  mouth,  is  precisely  that  which  after  his  de- 
parture, was  done  by  the  Holy  Ghost :  then  —  the  Holy  Ghost 
"opened  their  understandings,  that  they  might  understand  the 
Scriptures." 

Now,  in  this  view,  as  it  is  affirmed  in  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary, 
that  the  word  of  God  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  is  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ;  so 
it  must  be  said  that  the  Word  of  God  contained  in  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  must  be  considered  as  furnishing 
material  in  motive  for  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But,  it  is  in 
opposition  to  this  to  say,  as  in  Progressive  Orthodoxy,  that  Historic 
Christianity  alone  offers  sufficient  material  in  motive  for  the  natural 
and  efficacious  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Besides,  it  must  be  considered  in  respect  to  prophecy,  that  taking 
prophecy  ins,  predicated  fact ,  it  must  stand  in  the  same  relation  to 
doctrine  as  is  held  by  history  or  recorded  fact.  When  the  promise 
was  made  to  Abraham  that  in  him  all  the  nations  of  the  earth 
should  be  blessed,  the  promise  was  made  as  a  prophecy,  in  the 
form  of  2)redicated  facts  ;  not  to  become  historic  and  recorded 
facts  until  the  promise  shall  have  been  fulfilled.  But  though  not 
yet  historic  facts,  and  being  only  predicated  facts  of  prophecy, 
yet,  Abraham  believed  in  them,  and  his  faith  in  them  as  declared 
by  the  Word  of  God  was  accounted  to  him  for  righteousness.  So 
in  the  New  Testament  there  is  undoubtedly  prophecy  as  'predi- 
cated fact —  fact  which  cannot  become  historic  and  recorded  fact 
until  at  length  in  the  future  it  shall  be  fulfilled  ;  which  predicated 
fact  is  nevertheless  a  part  of  Cxod's  word,  and  goes  to  make  ui> 
the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith,  and  also  to  make  up  the  motive  for 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 


89 

But  this  predicated  fact  of  prophecy  is  not  taken  into  account, 
when  it  is  said,  as  in  Progressive  Orthodoxy,  that  Historic  Chris- 
tianity alone  offers  sufficient  material  in  motive,  in  the  life,  death, 
and  resurrection  of  our  Lord  for  the  natural  and  efficacious  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

II.  In  the  second  place  there  is  in  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  affirmed  in  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary,  a  creating  and  renewing 
agency  of  which  we  fail  to  find  any  proper  recognition  in  Prof/res- 
sive  Orthodoxy.  It  is  said  in  the  citation  (p.  119)  that  "Chris- 
tianity is  the  religion  of  motive,  a  fact  of  which  the  presence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  unmistakable  sign."  This  it  would  seem 
must  mean,  taken  with  postulate  (No.  2.  p.  116),  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  works  only  bj'  motive,  and  that  therefore  his  work  is  a 
natural  work,  and  that  in  so  working  his  work  is  efficacious.  The 
question  therefore  rises  here,  whether  it  is  intended  to  exclude  the 
supernatural  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit?  It  is  said  indeed,  in 
the  citation  made  from  the  129th  page,  that  '•  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  draws  its  argument  from  the  Person  and  Work  of  the 
Redeemer ;  and  that  it  proceeds  from  and  toward  Christ  in  the 
renewal  of  the  life  of  the  individual." — But  is  this  renewal  of 
the  life  of  the  individual  in  any  sense  a  supernatural  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit?  Is  it  instantaneous,  or  is  it  to  be  understood  as 
a  natural  and  gradual  pi'ocess  in  the  development  of  Christian 
character?  Some  answer  to  this  question  is  given  \_Prog.  Orth. 
p.  126]:- 

And  if  now  we  turn  to  the  renewing  and  transforming  work  of  the  Spirit 
within  the  soul  we  find  the  same  direct  relation  to  Clirist.  As  before  Christ 
was  the  argument,  now  He  is  the  pattern.  The  Spirit  works  toward  Christ 
in  the  reconstruction  of  character.  It  is  enough  to  say  of  his  work  that  it  is 
in  the  endeavor  to  make  men  over  into  Christians.  The  end  is  actual  and 
manifest  likeness  to  Christ.  Regeneration  thus  acquires  a  large  and  an 
exact  meaning  under  Chi-istianity. 

In  this  renewing  and  transforming  work  of  the  Spirit  within  the 
soul  we  find  no  intimation  of  the  supernatural  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  He  takes  Cluist  as  the  Pattern.  Tlie  Spirit  works  toward 
Christ  as  the  Pattern  in  the  reconstruction  of  character.  It  is 
enough  to  say  of  his  work  that  it  is  in  the  endeavor  to  make  men 
over  into  Christians  :  while  the  end  is  the  actual  and  manifest 
liixcness  to  Christ.  This  is  called  regeneiation  :  a  r'.'geiieration 
which  acquires  a  large  and  exact  meaning  iii:\:  Chri^ti.Kiit--. 


90 

Now,  while  there  may  be  something  in  this  conformable  to  the 
work  of  sanctifieatiou,  we  fail  to  see  in  this  any  thing  of  regener- 
ation according  to  the  intention  of  the  Seminary  Creed.  It  is  said 
there,  that  regeneration  and  sanctification  are  effects  of  the  creating 
and  renewing  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  meaning  is  that  re- 
generation is  an  instantaneous  work.  The  men  who  framed  and 
were  interested  in  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary  believed  that  God 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  the  sole  Author  of  regeneration  ;  the  first 
mover  of  it ;  the  sole  director  of  all  other  agencies  in  the  work  ; 
and  that  sole  Author,  implied  a  direct  and  immediate  interposition 
in  the  work.  Thus  they  regarded  regeneration  as  a  special  work 
of  God. 

But  in  opposition  to  this  view  of  regeneration  in  the  Seminary 
Creed,  regeneration  is  represented  in  Progressive  Orthodoxy  as 
a  gradual  work,  as  the  imitation  of  Christ  as  the  pattern  under 
the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  working  on  the  soul  by  motive  ; 
the  Spirit  working  toward  Christ  in  the  reconstruction  of  char- 
acter. 

According  to  the  Creed,  the  Holy  Spirit  uses  all  of  Divine  truth, 
as  influence,  and  instrument,  and  motive  ;  while  at  the  same  time, 
he  has  supernatural  agency  over  and  above  motive,  and  over  and 
above  the  influence  of  truth. 

In  opposition  to  this  supernatural  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
Progressive  Orthodoxy  lays  stress  upon  '-the  natural  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit."    So  Prog.  Orth.  [p.  122]  :  — 

The  knowledge  of  Christ  precedes  and  is  necessary  to  the  natural  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

So  Prog.  Orth.  [p.  116]  :  The  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  nat- 
ural work. 

\_Prog.  Orth.  p.  129.]     The  question  is  asked:  — 

How  could  tlie  Spirit  of  ftod  develop  without  the  aid  of  Christianity 
those  working  principles  for  tlie  renovation  of  society,  which  men  wotild 
recognize  as  sufficient,  and  to  which  they  could  surrender  tliemselves  with 
enthusiasm? 

As  though  the  Holy  Spirit  had  no  power  besides  that  in  which 
he  works  as  an  influence  attending  truth,  as  limited  to  the  life. 
death,  and  resurrection  of  our  Lord:  and  that,  as  a  nalunil  intli- 
ence  by  motive,  for  the  renovation  of  society  I 

It  is  here  left  out  of  account  that  God  by  His  sovereignty  nia'ces 


91 

a  motive  effective,  which  has  been  rejected  and  ineffectual  in  the 
natural  mode  of  influence.  Thus,  the  Holy  Spirit  may  work 
according  to  motive  in  the  natural  method.  He  may  assist  con- 
science to  do  its  work  in  a  further  degree  than  it  would  do  if  the 
conscience  were  left  to  itself.  He  may  act  upon  the  minds  of 
men  in  many  ways,  by  exciting  thought  in  them,  and  by  assisting 
their  natural  reason  and  uuderstauding  :  but  in  the  renewing  and 
sanctifying  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  those  things  are  wrought  in 
the  soul  that  are  above  nature,  and  of  which  there  is  nothing 
of  the  like  kind  in  the  soul  by  nature.  In  this  supernatural  agency, 
the  Holy  Spirit  does  not  use  any  means  that  operate  by  their  own 
power,  or  natural  force,  but  he  works  not  mediately,  but  immedi- 
ately. By  this  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  society  is  renovated 
much  in  proportion  to  the  number  in  it  who  have  become  the  sub- 
jects of  renewing  grace  :  and  this  too  when  without  this  supernat- 
ural work  of  the  Spirit  society  would  not  be  renovated  at  all,  so 
as  to  come  in  possession  of  a  deep  and  lasting  purpose  for  right- 
eousness. 

To  us,  the  whole  Book  of  Progressive  Ortliodoxy  is  pervaded 
with  rationalistic  principles,  to  the  utter  neglect  of  the  Scriptures. 
Therefore,  we  believe  that  against  Prof.  Egbert  C.  Smj'th  as  the 
editor,  composer,  and  publisher  of  this  book,  the  charge  is  sus- 
tained :  —  viz.  :  that  he  holds,  maintains  and  inculcates,  contrary  to 
the  Creed  of  the  Seminary,  that  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
chiefly  confined  to  the  sphere  of  historic  Christianity. 

3.  "We  further  charge  that  Prof.  Egbert  C.  Smyth  holds,  main- 
tains and  inculcates  :  Tluit  faith  ought  to  he  scientijic  and  rational^ 
rather  than  Scriptural, 

The  declaration  in  respect  to  faith  which  every  Professor  in  the 
Seminary  is  obliged  by  statute  to  make  and  subscribe  is  as  follows, 
viz.  : 

I  beliete  that  the  Word  of  God,  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament,  is  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

This  faith  is  credit  given  to  the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures  as 
being  the  Word  of  God,  as  having  the  authority  of  God.  Thus 
received,  "  the  Bible  is  to  the  theologian  what  nature  is  to  the 
man  of  science,  it  is  his  storehouse  of  facts."  By  classifying  tlte 
facts  of  Scripture,  and  by  induction  from  them,  tlie  theologian  is 
able  to  formulate  the  doctrines  which  the  Scriptures  teach  in  the 


92 

harmony  of  a  system.  Thus  the  theologian,  who  takes  the  Scrip- 
tures as  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  takes  the 
Christian  system  of  doctrines  precisely  as  it  is  given  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, without  being  diverted  by  any  side  references  to  particular 
philosophical  schools,  or  b}'  an}^  assumptions  of  science  external 
to  the  Scriptures,  or  by  any  demands  of  the  human  reason  exter- 
nal to  the  Scriptures  ;  and  because  the  .Scriptures  as  the  revelation 
of  the  Eternal  Mind  take  the  place  of  tlie  human  reason  within 
the  sphere  of  Christian  doctrine.     Now  we  obsen'e  : 

I.  That,  as  opposed  to  Scriptural  faith,  it  is  said  \^Prog.  Orth. 
p.  8]  :  - 

There  is  no  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  however  rudimentary  and  essential, 
which  is  not  susceptible  of  illumination  or  higher  systemization  in  the  devel- 
opment of  a  scientific  faith. 

But  Scriptural  faith  is  not  the  result  of  scientific  development, 
nor  scientific,  for  in  that  case  it  must  be  "  conformed  to  the  rules 
of  science."  By  science,  faith  is  the  result  of  logical  induction, 
so  that  scientific  demonstration  is  independent  of  the  will,  and  is 
demonstrative  onl}'  in  so  far  as  it  is  compulsory  on  the  mind.  The 
existence  of  God  is  not  susceptible  of  a  scientific  demonstration, 
and  Scripture  so  represents  it,  for,  it  commands  us  to  believe  in 
one  God ;  but  all  commands  relate  to  the  will.  The  safeguard  of 
Scriptural  faith  is  the  right  state  of  the  heart,  by  which  the  obedi- 
ence of  the  will  is  secured,  but  a  scientific  faith  has  no  safeguard 
in  its  appeal  to  the  mind,  in  respect  to  Scripture  truth  ;  for  what 
may  seem  to  be  a  demonstration  to  one  mind  will  seem  to  be  no 
demonstration  to  another  mind,  and  because  the  subjects  of  Scriptu- 
ral faith  are  above  the  capacity  of  reason  and  beyond  the  reach  of 
scientific  demonstration.  An}'  attempt  to  make  Scriptural  faith 
scientific  in  method  tends  to  destroy  it. 

II.  As  opposed  to  Scriptural  faith,  it  is  said  that  we  cannot  tell 
what  the  Bible  is,  without  referring  to  another  revelation  which  God 
has  given  in  history  :  i.e.  the  account  which  the  Bible  gives  of  itself 
is  not  sufficient.  God  has  revealed  himself  in  the  Bible,  and  has 
also  given  a  revelation  in  history  by  which  we  are  to  leai-n  wliat 
the  Bible  is.  By  this  it  appears  that  tlie  Bilile  of  itself  could  not 
be  the  "only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice." 


93 

Thus  in  answer  to  the  question  '•  What  is  the  Bible  ?  "  — it  is 
said  :  — 

[Prog.  Orth.  p.  192]  :  — 

We  can  know  just  what  the  Bible  is  from  revelation,  if  we  have  a  revela- 
tion about  the  matter.  Is  this  in  our  possession  ?  No;  for  the  Scriptures 
(to  Christians  the  depository  of  revelation  whatever  else  they  may  be)  do  not 
undertake  to  tell  how  they  arose,  how  they  were  collected  into  one  sacred 
volume,  or  precisely  what  they  are.  The  exact  conception  of  their  distinc- 
tive qualities  which  by  general  consent  belongs  to  complete  Christian  knowl- 
edge they  do  not  profess  to  give. 

[Prog.  Orth.  p.  193]  :  — 

We  are  therefore  driven  back  to  a  study  of  these  Scriptures.  (O.  T. )  as 
well  as  of  those  of  the  later  Canon,  in  the  historical  evidences  of  their  origin 
and  nature. 

[Prog.  Orth.  p.  195]  :  — 

We  must  seek,  then,  knowledge  of  the  distinctive  quality  and  value  of  the 
Scriptures  by  studying  God's  revelation  given  in  history.  A  collection  of 
literature  is  before  us,  — ideas  and  narratives  conveyed  by  human  uiiuds  to 
other  minds  in  human  language.  As  Christians  we  recognize  qualities  in 
these  ideas  and  narratives  which  are  wanting  to  other  literature.  We  wish  to 
obtain  a  knowledge  of  these  qualities  as  exact  as  possible,  and  try  to  find  out 
what  distinguished  their  authors  from  other  men  that  they  could  write  such 
books. 

Now.  this  study  of  history  upon  scientific  methods,  in  order  to 
determine  what  it  was  that  distinguished  the  sacred  writers  from 
other  men  that  they  could  write  such  books,  is  objectionable  be- 
cause it  may  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  they  were  not  different 
from  other  men.  and  that  they  could  not  have  written  what  their 
words  taken  by  themselves"  upon  a  fair  exegesis  plainly  indicate  : 
that,  considering  the  age  in  which  the}'  lived  as  to  civilization,  and 
the  culture  they  received,  they  could  not  be  supposed  to  have  writ- 
ten what  their  words  signify  as  interpreted  by  themselves.  Thus 
the  sacred  contents  of  the  Scriptures  must  suffer  abatement  as  tes- 
timony to  be  received  by  faith,  to  suit  whatever  caprice  of  the  so- 
called  science  of  history  or  philosophy  happens  to  l)e  in  fashion. 

Besides,  this  inquiry  into  what  distinguished  the  sacred  writers 
from  other  men.  in  historic  sources  is  not  necessary.  It  is  of  no 
consequence  that  we  do  not  know  the  authors  of  the  principles  of 
Geometry  which  Kudid  is  said  to  have  collected  and  systematized  ; 
nor  what  led  to  the  discovery  of  these  principles,  whether  for  the 
re-survey  of  lands  on  the  Nile  after  each  inundation,  or  for  archi- 


94 

tectural  or  astronomical  use.  The  truth  is  contained  in  the  con- 
tents of  the  Elements  of  Pure  Geometry,  independent  of  the  age  in 
which  they  were  discovered,  or  the  peculiarities  of  the  persons  who 
discovered  them :  so  that  in  all  time  to  come  men  who  may  have 
no  knowledge  historically  of  Euclid,  Archimedes  or  Apollonius, 
are  fully  persuaded  of  the  truths  of  Geometry.  So  in  a  manner 
analogous,  though  with  more  certainty,  as  to  the  truth  of  the  Scrip- 
tures as  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  as  contained  in 
the  Scriptures  themselves. 

III.  The  treatment  of  inspiration  in  Progressive  Orthodoxy 
dwarfs  the  Scriptures,  and  thus  opposes  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary. 
The  saying  of  Hopkins  that  "  the  Scriptures  were  composed  under 
the  direction  and  superintendency  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  authors 
being  inspired  by  him  "Ms  substantially  denied  in  Progressive 
Orthodoxy : 

That  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  denotes  such  an  influence  upon  the  minds 
of  the  writers  of  the  Bible  as  caused  them  to  write  in  the  best  manner:  that 
it  was  inspiration  of  superintendencj^,  direction,  suggestion  and  revelation : 
that  by  inspiration  there  was  communicated  to  the  minds  of  the  sacred  pen- 
men such  truths  as  were  important  for  them  to  know,  and  such  as  would 
not,  or  could  not  otherwise  have  come  to  their  knowledge. 

All  which  is  necessary  in  order  that  the  Bible  should  be  the  only 
perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice :  is  substantially  denied  in  Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy. 

We  say  substantially,  for  we  do  not  mean  to  say  that  any  thing 
is  said  on  this  subject  with  such  carefulness  in  method,  and  con- 
sistency of  statement,  that  it  can  properly  be  referred  to  as  a 
theory,  or  a  vieio,  of  inspiration.  Besides,  the  treatment  of  this,  as 
of  other  subjects  in  this  book  is  so  obscure,  through  its  mysticism, 
as  to  preclude,  in  many  instances,  clearness  and  consistency  of 
thought. 

It  is  obvious  enough  however,  that  all  communication  of  ideas, 
such  as  could  not  otherwise  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  sacred 
writers,  is  here  rejected.  The  revelation  by  the  sacred  writers  was 
rather  such  as  would  flow  in  a  rational  manner  from  their  personal 
vitality,  as  a  part  of  their  personal  experience,  so  that  while,  in 
some  sense,  the  Holy  Spirit  imparted  to  them  a  supernatural  gift, 
the  use  of  this  gift  was  only  In'  a  rationalistic  method,  so  that  the 
writers  expressed  only  what  came  within  the  limits  of  their  own 
personal  experience. 

'   system,  vol.  1,  p.  19. 


95 

It  said  [Prori.  Orth.  p.  19«]  :  — 

Tlie  assumption  of  a  special  activity  of  the  Divine  Spirit  upon  the  apostles 
and  other  writers  of  Scripture  in  the  act  of  composition,  endowing  what  came 
from  their  pens  with  qualities  possessed  by  no  other  Christian  teaching,  is  a 
most  fruitful  source  of  confusion  in  the  endeavor  to  find  out  what  Scripture 
is. 

This  is  said  in  this  connection  by  comparison  of  what  was  written 
by  the  apostles,  with  their  oral  teaching,  but  it  is  plainly  the  inten- 
tion to  reject  the  special  aid  of  the  Spirit  in  either  case. 

It  is  further  said  \_Prog.  Orth.  p.  200]  :  — 

The  apostles  were  the  bearers  of  a  revelation  made  immediately  to  each  of 
them  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  Of  the  fact  of  such  revelation  they  were  con- 
scious; by  their  consciousuess  of  it  the  form  of  their  teaching  is  moulded.  We 
turn  to  their  religious  life  and  study  this  wonderful  experience  in  the  light  of 
their  ovm  testimony,  in  the  hope  of  gaining  such  a  knowledge  of  it  as  shall 
lead  to  an  adequate  conception  of  the  nature  of  the  teaching  which  flowed 
from  it.  The  fundamental  characteristic  of  the  revelation  borne  by  each 
apostle  was  its  vitality.  It  was  an  essential  part  of  the  spiritual  life.  The 
gift  received  by  the  infant  Church  on  Pentecost  was  not  merely  the  bestowal 
of  this  or  that  capacity:  it  was  that  of  living  in  a  new  and  higher  way. 

Again  IProg.  Orth.  p.  201]  :  — 

The  revelation  of  which  each  apostle  was  the  bearer  is  not,  therefore,  to 
be  thought  of  as  a  set  of  religious  ideas  made  over  to  him  to  be  held  as  an 
external  possession.  The  man  could  not  be  himself  without  having  it;  he 
could  not  give  it  without  giving  his  life  with  it.  For  it  was  in  essence  a 
personal  experience  of  Jesus  Christ  in  and  through  whom  he  lived. 

Again  [Prrxj.  Orth.  p.  204]  :  — 

Our  reverence  for  man  is  such  that  we  can  easily  believe  the  best  medium 
for  conveying  God's  truth  to  the  world  to  be  a  human  life  filled  and  inspired  by 
this  truth.  And  when  we  come  under  the  influence  of  the  apostolic  letters 
we  feel  that  their  riialit)/  penetrating  the  truth  is  of  the  ver}-  essence  of  their 
disclosing  power.  It  is  not  so  much  that  we  draw  ideas  about  God  out  of 
them,  as  that  we  touch  God  himself  in  them,  because  the  life  with  which 
they  palpitate  is  fed  in  its  central  springs  by  his  own.  It  is  not  merely  iu 
what  they  {fay  that  they  reveal  God  to  us,  but  in  what  they  suggest. 

Now  according  to  this  ;  since  the  revelation  of  which  each  apos- 
tle is  the  bearer,  is  limited  to  that  apostle's  experience  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  partakes  of  that  apostle's  characteristic,  it  follows  that 
the  revelation  must  be  imperfect.  It  is  so  identified  with  what  is 
fallible  and  human,  that  it  could  not  be  taken  as  a  perfect  revela- 
tion. 


96 

This  iu  a  measure  is  conceded  {_Prog.  Orth.  p.  207]  :  — 

It  will  be  asked  —  "If  the  revelation  partake  of  the  characteristics  of  the 
man  through  whom  it  is  given,  must  it  not  share  his  imperfection  ?  "  If  by 
imperfection  be  meant  such  defect  of  character  as  is  implied  in  the  lack  of 
ideal  symmetry,  we  answer,  Yes.  The  many  years  spent  in  Pharisaic  bond- 
age must  have  left  an  abiding  influence  upon  St.  Paul's  character  ;  for  grace 
cannot  miraculously  obliterate  slow  moral  growths.  We  could  not  but  ex- 
pect that  his  bitter  experience  should  have  led  him  to  find  in  the  doctrine  of 
justification  a  relative  prominence  which  it  would  not  wear  to  any  who  liad 
not  borne  a  chain  like  his. 

But  if  this  be  a  fair  exposition  of  revelation  by  St.  Paul,  then  it 
must  follow  that  the  doetriue  of  justification  will  appear  in  some 
measure  as  an  exaggeration  to  all  not  having  had  his  peculiar  ex- 
perience. Thus,  the  Word  of  God  so  far  as  revelation  by  St.  Paul 
is  concerned,  is  not  a  perfect  rule  of  faith.  But  according  to 
this  view  of  inspiration  the  same  may  be  said  of  the  other  apostles 
whose  peculiar  and  differing  characteristics  have  led  them  to  simi- 
lar exaggeration  each  in  his  own  way.  Thus  by  reviewing  the 
sacred  writers  in  detail,  and  marking  the  defects  of  the  revelation 
by  each,  we  must  conclude  that  the  Scriptures  as  a  whole  do  not 
contain  that  Word  of  God  which  is  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith 
and  practice. 

This  conclusion  appears  to  be  recognized  as  likely  to  be  drawn, 
and  a  remedy  given,  as  in  Prog.  Orth.  [p.  208]  :  — 

In  some  rare  cases  one  side  of  a  truth  is  so  frankly  presented  that  only  by 
finding  a  correlate  elsewhere  are  we  saved  from  misconception;  as  in  James's 
teaching  concerning  justification.  But  the  slight  blemishes  in  the  very  finest 
optical  instruments  do  not  prevent  our  obtaining  from  them  data  which  to 
the  human  mind  of  finest  training  are  exceedingly  exact;  and  when  we  rec- 
ollect that  the  imperfection  of  the  organ  of  revelation  is  the  correlate  of 
qualities  which  give  especial  fitness  to  reveal  God"s  truth  to  man.  we  may 
dismiss  the  question  of  absolute  perfection  in  the  apostolic  teaching  as  having 
no  living  interest. 

But  this  remedy  for  the  imperfections  of  the  sacred  writers  is 
inadequate  ;  first,  because  the  correlate  of  James's  teaching  con- 
cerning justification,  wherever  found,  under  this  inspiration,  is  as 
liable  to  convey  a  misconception  as  the  teaching  of  James  himself : 
—  secondly,  because  this  remedy  can  apply,  according  to  the 
illustration  given,  only  to  the  human  mind  of  finest  training,  while 
all  others  must  be  exposed  to  misconceptions  of  the  Word  of  God 
contained  in  tiie  SeriiAures.      To  what  protieieney  in  science,   to 


97 

what  description  of  fineness  in  training  must  one  attain  in  order 
to  be  secure  from  misconception  of  the  sacred  writers  I  How  im- 
perfect the  Scriptures  as  containing  the  rule  of  faith,  if  onh*  a  few 
of  the  finest  training,  may  expect  to  receive  the  Scriptures  without 
misconception  of  them  I 

Besides,  who  is  to  determine  who  these  persons  of  finest  training 
are?  Those  not  of  this  elect  number,  would  be  incompetent  to 
elect  them,  while  it  might  not  be  safe  to  allow  this  number  to  be 
self-elective,  lest  the  election  be  made  by  self-conceit. 

Again,  in  denying  that  the  supernatural  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spu'it  exercised  suggestive  and  directive  power  on  the  mind  of  the 
sacred  penman,  revelation  is  limited  to  the  personal  vitalitj%  Chris- 
tian experience,  and  characteristic  of  the  writers ;  which  makes  it 
necessary  that  the  revelation  should  be  imperfect,  because  these 
writers  had  not  attained  to  perfect  holiness.  Some  sin  still  dwelt 
in  the  apostles.  This  sin  must  have  given  a  tinge  of  error  to  their 
teaching,  and  to  the  revelation  made  by  them.  This  objection  is 
anticipated  in  Prog.  Ortli.  [p.  207]  :  — 

"  Must  not  such  sin  as  still  dwelt  in  the  apostles  have  tinned  their  religious 
conceptions  and  teaching  with  error?"  We  reply,  This  could  not  have  been 
vmless  they  were  more  under  the  influence  of  moral  evil  than  we  have  any 
reason  to  suppose  them  to  have  been. 

This  answer  to  the  question  is  not  satisfactory :  for  first,  it  is 
not  within  the  province  of  reason  to  determine  that  the  sin  which 
still  dwelt  in  the  apostles  v:ould  not  tinge  their  teaching  with  error. 
That  would  be  rationalism.  But  secondly,  if  the  question  did 
come  within  the  province  of  reason,  the  inference  would  be  in  the 
opposite  direction,  viz.,  that  if  sin  did  still  dwell  in  the  apostles, 
it  icould  find  expression  in  their  religious  conceptions  and  teaching  : 
unJess  their  conceptions  and  teaching  were  corrected  by  the  super- 
natural agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  without,  in  superintending 
and  suggesting  the  revelation  to  l>e  made. 

But  this  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  denied  :  hence  there  is  no 
certainty  that  revelation  coming  from  men  in  whom  there  is  any 
sin  could  be  a  perfect  rule  of  faith.  This  appears  to  be  conceded 
in  Prog.  Orth.  [p.  208],  where  it  is  said  :  — 

We  can  hardly  believe,  indeed,  that  the  truth  as  revealed  through  the 
apostles  had  such  absolute  purity  as  we  must  suppose  it  to  have  had  if  per- 
fect beinars  had  been  the  media  of  revelation. 


98 

This  concession  shows  that  such  inspiration  as  is  here  held  is 
inadequate.  It  could  not  insure  a  perfect  and  pure  revelation. 
unless  the  media  of  revelation  should  be  persons  perfect  in  experi- 
ence and  characteristics,  and  sinless. 

According  to  the  view  of  inspiration  implied  in  the  Seminary 
Creed,  in  which  the  supernatural  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  super- 
intends and  suggests  to  the  sacred  penman,  the  penman  of  him- 
self might  be  imperfect,  and  sinful  in  some  degree,  and  write  a 
poor  hand  as  compared  with  an  ideal  of  perfect  penmanship,  and 
yet  the  revelation  written  by  this  penman  would  be  legible  and  per- 
fect as  a  rule  of  faith. 

But  inspiration  as  held  in  Progressive  Orthodoxy,  since  it  rejects 
this  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  cannot  claim  that  it  has  per- 
fect beings  as  the  media  of  revelation,  must  be  charged  with  pre- 
senting a  revelation  which  is  imperfect,  and  so  not  a  perfect  rule 
of  faith,  as  revelation  is  declared  to  be  in  the  Seminary  Creed. 

Again,  inspiration  as  described  in  Progressive  Ortliodoo:y  is 
opposed  to  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary  since  it  virtually  assumes 
that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  Xew  Testaments  do  not  compose 
the  sum  of  revelation.  Revelation  may  have  been  continued  since 
the  completion  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 
Accordingly,  in  Prog.  Orth.  [p.  209]    we  read:  — 

The  views  of  Christ  and  of  his  truth  contained  in  the  apostolic  Epistles 
must,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  always  shape  the  religious  and  moral  con- 
ceptions of  the  church.  Sot  that  they  alone  possessed  the  spirit  of  v:is- 
dom  and  revelatiox.  He  Is  the  spirit  of  v:lsdoiii  and  revelation  la 
exery  soul  in  v:hlch  He  dwells,  and  there  have  been  some  souls  in  ages  since 
the  apostolic  into  which  he  has  so  abundantly  shed  the  radiance  of  God's 
truth,  that  they  have  been  the  spiritual  luminaries  of  their  own  and  following 
centuries. 

According  to  this,  Christ  being  not  only  the  spirit  of  wisdom, 
but  also  of  revelation,  in  every  soul  in  which  he  dwells,  it  follows 
that  revelation  has  been  continued  since  the  revelation  recorded  in 
the  Old  and  Xew  Testaments.  It  is  added,  indeed  [Prog.  Orth. 
p.  209],  that:  — 

Xo  Teacher  in  the  Church  has  ever  arisen  or  can  ever  arise  so  filled  with 
the  Spirit  as  not  to  depend  upon  the  apostles  for  conceptions  of  God. 

But  it  is  ako  said  on  tlie  same  page  [200]  that  ••the  apostles 
were    continuallv    drawing"    knowledo;.?    from    the    Old    Testament 


99 

Scriptures,"  and  again  the  prophets  from  whom  the  apostles  drew 
kuowledge  were  dependent  upon  the  conceptions  of  God  given  to 
their  predecessors.  This  dependence  of  the  luminaries  of  revela- 
tion since  the  apostles  upon  the  apostles  ;  and  of  the  apostles  upon 
the  prophets ;  and  of  the  prophets  uixm  their  predecessors  ;  is  sim- 
ply a  dependence  of  fellon.-ship.  It  is  such  that  each  in  turn  is  the 
bearer  of  revelation  in  advance  of  that  preceding,  so  that  there  is 
nothing  in  this  to  prevent  luminaries  of  revelation  since  the  apos- 
tles, from  being  the  bearers  of  revelation  in  advance  of  that  borne 
by  the  apostles.     It  is  said  \_Prog.  Orth.  p.  211]  :  — 

We  would  gladly  cherish  the  thought  that  other  teachers  might  arise, 
from  whom  should  flow  even  more  copious  streams  of  living  water  than 
those  which  welled  from  the  hearts  of  the  apostles.  But  we  are  compelled 
to  regard  the  circumstances  of  their  lives  as  excluding  such  a  hope. 

We  observe  that  the  thought  which  would  be  gladly  cherished,  is 
that  other  teachers  might  arise  superior  to  the  apostles  in  the  gift 
of  revelation  ;  and  that  there  is  nothing  here  maintained  to  preclude 
such  an  event,  so  far  as  the  teachers  in  themselves  are  concerned. 
That  which  excludes  the  hope  for  such  an  event  is  the  less  favor- 
able conditions  and  circumstances  of  all  teachers  subsequent  to  the 
aix)stles.  But  while  teachers  may  not  arise  superior  to  the  apostles 
in  the  gift  of  revelation,  it  is  maintained  that  teachers  will  arise 
having  this  gift,  though  in  less  degree.  This  is  further  shown  in 
Prog.  Orth.  [p.  212],  which  reads, — 

The  Church  is  ever  adding  to  its  knowledge  of  Christ,  and  the  exegetical 
process  is  certainly  not  the  exclusive  means  of  making  the  increment.  Out 
of  mere  study  of  books  did  not  come  its  growing  knowledge  of  Christ's 
relation  to  God.  and  to  mankind,  nor  its  conception  of  the  breadth  of  his 
redeeming  work.     Such  a  product  shows  the  revealing  presence  of  the  Spirit. 

As  further  maintaining  that  the  knowledge  of  Christ  has  not 
come  to  the  Church  exclusively  by  Exegesis  we  refer  to  Frog. 
Orth.  [p.  12]  :  — 

Single  proof  texts  or  collected  proof  texts  are  not  a  measure  of  Christian- 
ity nor  of  our  knowledge  of  Christianity.  The  greatness  of  Christ  is  re- 
flected in  history  as  well  as  in  Apostolic  teaching  ;  in  the  fulfilments  of 
prophecy  as  well  as  in  the  comparatively  indistinct  letter  of  the  original  pre- 
diction; in  the  advance  of  the  Church  in  an  appropriation  of  the  spirit  of  his 
teaching;  in  its  growing  power  to  think  after  Ilim  his  thoughts  and  to  be 
inspired  by  his  love;  in  the  long  succession  of  ceutuiies  which  require  new 


interpretations  of  the  meaning  of  his  secon.l  cozuing;  in  the  evolution  of 
the  economy  of  the  Holy  Spirit  whom  He  sends,  and  whose  work  is  comli- 
tioned  by  his  Person,  sacrifice,  and  reign.  All  these  things  put  the  Church 
now  in  a  relation  to  his  religion  which  never  before  has  been  paralleled. 

Again,  it  is  said   \_Prog.  Ortli.  p.  10]  :  — 

The  Bible,  it  should  be  remembered,  is  not  a  collection  of  texts  designed 
to  establish  propositions  in  systematic  Theology. 

In  respect  to  what  is  said  in  these  passages  about  texts  of  scrip- 
ture ;  as  already  intimated  in  this  paper,  we  say  tliat  without  doubt, 
the  Bible  is  ^  '"  collection  of  texts  designed  to  establish  proposi- 
tions in  systematic  theology,"  provided,  the  system  of  theology  to 
be  established  is  bibUccd.  Single  proof  texts  and  collected  proof 
texts  are  a  measure  both  of  Christianity  and  of  our  knowledge  of 
Christianity,  if  the  collection  and  classification  of  texts  be  impar- 
tial and  exhaustive.  As  in  mineralogy,  by  classifying  minerals 
according  to  their  refraction,  density,  cleavage,  and  angularity, 
with  whatever  other  qualities  they  possess,  various  propositions  are 
deduced  and  S3'stematieally  stated  ;  so  by  classifying  texts  of  scrip- 
ture, various  doctrines  are  deduced  and  formally  stated  in  their 
relations  as  composing  systematic,  biblical,  theology.  Of  course, 
such  a  classification  of  texts  will  not  serve  in  a  systematic  theology 
which  aims  only  to  be  philosophical,  and  to  move  in  the  plane  of 
human  science,  rejecting  the  supernatural.  It  is  true  also  that 
doctrines  have  been  formulated  from  the  scriptures  which  were  not 
true,  because  the  classification  of  texts  upon  which  they  were  based 
was  defective.  Arius  and  Sabellius  both  appealed  to  scripture. 
Neither  of  them  took  the  position  of  the  infidel.  Each  acknowl- 
edged the  authority  of  the  written  word,  and  endeavored  to  sup- 
port his  position  from  it.  But  in  these  instances  the  individual 
mind  picked  up  scriptural  elements  as  they  lay  scattered  upon  the 
page  and  in  the  letter  of  scripture,  and  without  combining  them 
with  others  that  lie  just  as  plainly  upon  the  very  same  pages, 
moulded  them  into  a  defective,  and  therefore  erroneous  statement. 
The  test  of  a  system  of  biblical  theology  ;  that  which  determines 
its  soundness  ;  is.  whether  the  classification  of  textc  of  Scripture 
is  complete  from  which  the  doctrines  of  the  SN'stem  have  been  de- 
duced. This  is  because  the  word  of  God  contained  in  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  is  the  only  perfect  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,  in  all  places  and  in  all  ages.  So  the  system  of 
Ijiblieal  theology,  of  which  it  should  be  absolutely  certain  that  its 


101 

doctriue3  were  deduced  from  a  perfect  classification  of  texts  of 
Scripture,  would  be  a  perfect  system.  The  only  rightful  claim 
that  a  system  of  theology  can  have  to  being  new,  or  of  advance  in 
thought  beyond  a  preceding  sj'stem,  must  depend  upon  its  being 
able  to  show  conclusively,  that  it  has  secured  for  itself  a  more  per- 
fect classification  of  proof  texts  from  Scripture  in  support  of  itself 
than  has  been  secured  by  any  other  sj'stem. 

It  is  necessary  to  notice  here,  a  mistake  often  made  in  which 
progress  in  the  application  of  truth,  is  taken  for  progress  in  the 
truth  itself.  It  is  often  said  of  science  that  it  has  made  great  ad- 
vances in  our  time,  as  shown  in  mechanic  art ;  when  it  is  not  pure 
science  that  has  been  the  subject  of  progress,  but  that  the  progress 
made  is  only  in  the  practical  application  of  principles  and  laws  in 
science  which  had  been  demonstrated  and  known  as  pure  science 
for  more  than  a  thousand  years.  The  same  mistake  has  been  made 
in  proclaiming  an  advance  in  Christian  truth  as  revelation,  when  in 
fact  there  was  only  new  interest  in  the  practical  application  of  the 
good  old  revelation  in  itself  infallible,  and  not  subject  to  change 
or  improvement. 

Now,  our  complaint  of  the  view  of  inspiration  which  we  find  in 
Progressive  Orthodoxy  is  that  it  assumes  progress  in  the  truth  itself, 
so  that  now  the  volume  of  Christian  truth  may  be  said  to  be  greater 
than  that  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments :  so  that  now  those  Scriptures  as  revelation  do  not  contain 
the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  This  appears  from  the 
revelation  of  God  claimed  to  have  been  made  in  other  sources,  the 
revelation  in  history ;  in  every  soul  in  which  God  dwells,  and  reve- 
lation in  science.  —  such  that  the  Bible  has  been  obliged  to  wait  for 
it.  before  it  could  have  a  definition. 

[Prog.  Orth.  p.  15]  :  — 

The  question,  What  is  the  Bible  ?  could  not  earlier  be  investigated  as  in 
recent  days,  for  lack,  apart  from  other  reasons,  of  the  requisite  critical 
apparatus. 

It  is  assumed  that,  any  view  of  the  Bible  as  of  a  perfect  book, 
which  brings  it  into  collision  with  historical  and  physical  science, 
weakens  Christianity,  by  which  it  appears  the  word  of  Scripture 
and  the  rule  of  faith  must  be  tried  before  the  lar  of  science,  and 
stand  or  fall  according  to  whether  they  make  good  their  claim  be- 
fore that  bar.  Progressive  Orthodoxy  is  flavored  throughout  with 
this  deference  to  science. 


102 

It  is  said  [Prog.  Orth.  p.  110]  :  — 

We  believe  that  all  the  more  obscure  revelations  of  God,  and  all  the  reli- 
gions as  truly  as  the  religion  of  the  Hebrews,  have  been  an  education  of  the 
nations  preparatory  to  the  clear,  glorious,  and  potent  revelation  of  God  in 
Christ. 

The  revelation,  then,  given  by  God  in  the  history  of  the  religion 
of  the  nations,  is  put  on  the  same  plane  with  the  revelation  in  the 
history  of  the  religion  of  the  Hebrews  given  in  the  Scriptures,  all 
preparing  the  way  for  the  advent  of  Christ. 

It  is  in  this  view,  then,  not  the  narrow  revelation  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, but  this  more  complete  revelation  in  the  history  of  all  na- 
tions, and  the  development  of  all  science,  that  makes  up  the  perfect 
rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

Thus  the  whole  tone  and  ^\.y\e  of  Progressive  Orthodoxy  goes  to 
show  that  there  is  something  besides  the  Scriptures,  which  must  be 
taken  in  modification  of  the  internal  evidences  and  contents  of  the 
Scriptures  in  determining  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  It  is  this 
rationalism,  this  domination  of  Science  over  the  Scriptures,  of 
which  we  complain,  and  which  we  believe  to  be  in  opposition  to 
the  Creed  of  the  Seminary.  "We  do  not  claim  that  reason  has  no 
vocation  in  relation  to  faith.  We  believe  in  the  spiritual  unity  of 
the  Bible  ;  that  the  writings  composing  the  Bible,  though  originating 
in  widely  distant  ages  and  in  so  many  different  authorships,  never- 
theless when  brought  together,  reveal  a  spiritual  unity,  constitute 
an  organic  whole,  as  truth  to  be  received  by  faith ;  as  truth  to 
which  reason  and  science  have  no  capacity  to  make  additions,  and 
from  which  they  have  no  capacity  to  make  subtractions  ;  either 
directly  as  by  positive  denial  of  any  part  of  this  truth,  or  indirectly 
by  an  unscriptural  and  rationalizing  method  of  interpretation. 
Science  may  illustrate  Divine  truth,  but  science  cannot  produce 
new  truth,  as  an  improvement  upon,  or  enlargement  of  Divine 
truth. 

This  supremacy  of  the  "Word  of  God  contained  in  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  by  which  it  is  the  only  perfect 
rule  of  faith  and  practice  depends  upon  the  siqjerivtendiug  iuspira- 
ration  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  served  the  sacred  writers  as  a 
prompter.  "When  a  man  goes  on  the  stage  he  has  a  prompter  be- 
hind him.  If  the  man  makes  a  mistake,  the  prompter  corrects 
him.  If  the  man  makes  a  statement  and  the  prompter  does  not 
correct  him,  the  man  knows  he  is  right.     It  is  because  the  Holy 


103 

Spirit,  by  the  inspiration  of  Superintendency,  so  prompted  the 
sacred  writers  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament 
are  free  from  error,  that  the  Word  of  God  is  contained  in  them  ; 
and  that  this  Word  of  God  is  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith. 

Now  because  we  find  in  Progressive  Orthodoxy^  contrary  to  the 
Creed  of  the  Seminary  :  that  faith  is  said  to  be  scientific  ;  that  we 
must  call  science  to  our  aid  before  we  can  tell  what  the  Bible  is ; 
that  there  are  other  sources  of  revelation  besides  the  Scriptures ; 
that  the  supernatural  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  superintending 
by  inspiration  the  communications  made  by  the  sacred  writers  of 
the  Scriptures  is  virtually  denied  ;  —  therefore  we  maintain  that 
Prof.  Egbert  C.  Smyth  in  having  composed  the  book  Progressive 
Orthodoxy  does  hold,  maintain,  and  inculcate,  in  opposition  to  the 
Creed  of  the  Seminary,  that  faith  ought  to  be  scientific  and  rational, 
rather  than  Scriptural. 


ARGUMENT   OF   REV.    H.    M.    DEXTER,   D.D.^ 


To  the  Reverend  and  Honorable,  the  Board  of  Visitors  of  the  TJieo- 
logical  Seminary  at  Andover. 

Gentlemen  :  It  seems  clue  to  exact  truth  that  I  spend  a  pre- 
liminary moment  in  some  further  explanation,  than  has  yet  been 
made  public,  of  the  exact  genesis  of  this  procedure. 

In  the  Andover  Review  for  December  last,  [p.  579,]  referring 
to  a  fear  which  has  occasionally  found  expression  of  their  untruth 
to  their  public  pledges,  after  an  intimation  —  in  which  we  are  not 
able  to  concur  —  that  such  a  fear  does  not  occasion  ''profound 
anxiet\-  to  the  religious  public  generally,"  Prof.  Smyth  and  his 
associates  went  on  to  sa}- : 

TVe  take  the  libertj-  of  adding  that  we  have  become  so  familiar  with  the 
opinion  of  certain  persons  concerning  our  alleged  inconsistency,  that  it  is 
quite  superfluous  on  their  part  to  iterate  and  reiterate  that  opinion.  Under 
the  circumstances  we  feel  warranted  in  referring  our  censors  to  Romans  xiv. 
4.  [Who  art  thou  that  judgest  another  man's  servant?  to  his  own  master  he 
standeth  or  falleth.] 

We  understood  these  Professors  in  this  language  to  seek  to 
repudiate  that  moral  responsibility  to  the  general  judgment  of  the 
Chi'istian  community,  from  which  the}"  can  no  more  withdraw 
themselves  than  they  can  elude  the  grasp  of  the  atmosphere,  or 
the  force  of  gravity  ;  and  to  intimate,  that,  though  hundreds  of  the 
Alumni  of  Andover  should  be  grieved  and  shocked  at  its  appre- 
hended defection,  under  their  leading,  from  the  evangelical  truth 
which  it  was  founded  to  advocate  ;  it  would  be  "  quite  superfluous 
on  their  part  to  iterate  and  reiterate  that  opinion."  And.  we 
further  understood  them,  for  substance,  to  affirm  that  your  Rever- 

'  The  argument  is  here  presented  in  full,  several  passages  having  been  crowded  out  in  the 
reading,  by  the  pressu.e  to  close  the  hearing. 

101 


105 

end  and  Honorable  Board,  by  having  said  nothing  and  done 
nothing  disfavoring  their  opinions  and  teaching,  was  distinctly 
permitting  thein  to  assume  that  it  indorses  their  position,  and  was 
by  •'  expressive  silence  "  declaring  that  position  to  be  agreeable  to 
the  true  intent  of  the  Founders,  and  (without  perversion,  or  the 
smallest  avoidance  of  their  true  design)  identically  the  same  with 
the  views  of  those  Founders  themselves,  without  the  least  altera- 
tion, addition,  or  diminution. 

Several  of  us  met  and  consulted  as  to  this.  That  consultation 
was  repeated  more  than  once,  and  enlarged  by  a  wide  correspond- 
ence. It  ended  in  a  conviction  that  the  time  had  fully  come 
when  your  Reverend  and  Honorable  Board  ought  to  be  approached, 
and  some  inquiry  made  as  to  the  warrant  behind  so  startling  a 
boast.  A  committee  was  therefore  appointed  to  seek  an  inter- 
view for  that  puriK)se  ;  and  that  committee  —  that  it  might  not  go 
as  on  a  mere  errand  of  idle  curiosity  —  reduced  carefully  to  writing 
some  of  the  reasons  why  they,  and  those  whom  they  represented, 
had  been  led  into  anxious  solicitude  as  to  the  present  condition  of 
at  least  a  portion  of  the  Seminary  teaching.  "We  took  the  pains 
to  have  our  statement  privateh'  printed  for  your  convenience,  and 
in  order  that  what  we  had  to  submit,  might,  in  its  exact  language, 
be  cotemporaneoush'  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Professors. 

You,  Gentlemen,  very  well  remember,  that,  by  your  courtesy. 
we  met  you,  in  this  building,  on  the  evening  of  6  July  last,  for 
the  purpose  named.  It  must  further  be  in  your  memory,  that  the 
idea  of  making  formal  charges  against  anybody  was  then  furthest 
from  our  thought ;  but  that  we  were  acting  in  what  we  supposed 
to  be  the  spirit  of  a  deliverance  of  your  predecessors  in  office,  of 
date  Sept.  1S44  [Dr.  Woods's  History  of  the  Andover  Theol.  Sent. 
425],  in  words,  as  follows: 

Wlienever  the  Visitors,  from  negligence,  or  from  laxity  in  their  theological 
views,  shall  be  wanting  in  their  clutj-,  that  guard  to  the  purity  of  doctrines 
taught  in  this  School,  which  the  Donors  intended  to  throw  around  it  by  per- 
petuating in  this  Board  their  own  powers  of  supervision,  will  be  broken 
down  ;  and  nothing  will  be  wanting  but  similar  defection  on  the  part  of  the 
Trustees,  to  change  this  "fountain  of  living  waters"  into  a  "River  of 
Death."'  If,  in  the  progress  of  time,  any  officer  of  this  Institution  should 
adopt  and  teach  opinions  and  doctrines  inconsistent  with  those  of  the  Donors, 
as  clearly  expressed  in  their  declarations  and  creeds,  it  would  be  requiring  of 
him  the  exercise  of  the  principles  of  common  honesty  only,  that  he  should 
resign.  Self-respect,  if  no  liigher  principle,  it  is  to  be  presumed,  would 
induce  him  to  do  it. 


106 

It  is  to  be  hoped,  therefore,  that  this  Institution  will  always  be  surrounded 
by  friends  jealous  for  its  honor,  and  imbued  with  that  love  for  the  truth,  and 
fortitude,  which  will  lead  them,  even  at  the  expense  of  personal  ease,  to 
sound  the  alarm,  upon  any  appearance  of  danger. 

We  had  no  other  purpose  than  thus  to  ' '  sound  ' '  in  j'our  ears 
an  "alarm,"  in  regard  to  what,  to  us,  was  an  "appearance  of 
danger;"  supposing  that  our  duty  in  the  premises  began  and 
ended  there.  You  recall  the  further  fact,  that — honorably  scrupu- 
lous not  to  open  j'our  ears  in  his  absence  to  any  thing  that  might 
seem  to  be  a  quasi  complaint  against  any  Professor,  you  requested 
and  directed  us  to  reduce  the  substance  of  our  paper  to  the  shape 
of  formal  charges  ;  and  made  it  the  dut}'  of  the  respected  Secretary 
of  your  Board  —  when  that  should  have  been  done  —  to  cite  the 
Professors  to  make  answer.  Here,  and  thus,  was  the  whole  begin- 
ning of  this  case. 

As  to  the  intimation  of  the  distinguished  gentleman  from  New 
York,  who  opened  the  hearing  upon  the  other  side,  that  something 
was  wanting  to  the  moral  make-up  of  this  committee  ;  as  if  our 
statement  that  we  represented  others  than  ourselves  was  a  dishon- 
orable pretence,  I  have  only  this  to  say  ;  that  I  think  it  would 
open  the  eyes  of  the  learned  gentleman  —  and  of  our  friends  the 
Professors,  as  well  —  should  we  submit  to  their  examination  evi- 
dence in  our  possession  of  the  number,  quality  and  fervor  of 
Alumni  of  Andover,  who  have  been  behind  us,  and  who  speak 
through  us,  on  this  occasion. 

Gentlemen,  bear  with  me  in  two  or  three  further  precursor}' 
suggestions.  The  iteration  and  reiteration  on  the  part  of  those 
who  seem  to  seek  to  serve  their  cause  by  an  api)eal  to  popular 
prejudice,  have  had  weight  with  many  to  make  them  think  that 
this  is  a  trial  for  heresy  —  and  therefore  out  of  place  in  the  nine- 
teenth century,  and  necessarily  a  narrow-minded  and  odious  tiling. 
You  very  well  know.  Gentlemen  Visitors,  that  this  is  not  a  trial 
for  heresy  ;  that  it  proposes  no  direct  inquiry  into  the  truth  or 
falsehood  of  the  opinions  of  the  Respondent ;  but  concerns  itself 
solely  with  the  question  whether,  having  solemnly  and  repeatedly 
contracted  to  discharge  the  duties  of  the  Brown  Professor  of 
Ecclesiastical  Historj'  at  Andover  in  a  minutely  specified  manner, 
he  continues  faithful  to  that  contract.  It  is  no  more  a  trial  for 
heresy  than  the  inquest  whether  the  professor  in  a  Homoeopathic 
hospital  has  been  guilty,  contrary  to  engagement,  of  Allopathic 
practice  tlierein,  would  be  a  trial  fur  heres}'.     Tu  l»e  sure  the  Ke- 


HSiHHHI 


107 

spondent  has  asked,  "why,  if  this  bo  not  a  trial  for  heresy,  we 
did  not  prosecute  the  Treasurer  of  the  Institution  instead  of  pros- 
ecuting him?"  To  which  I  reply  that  we  have  never  come  to 
the  knowledge  of  any  reason  to  suspect  the  perfect  uprightness 
of  that,  no  doubt,  most  estimable  officer.  If  he  had  established 
a  Monthly  Review  for  the  purpose  of  advocating  improvements 
in  the  multii)lication  table,  or  some  new  method  of  so  subtracting 
as  to  leave  the  appearance  of  the  former  amount,  and  had  made  up 
by  extracts  therefrom,  and  published,  a  book  called  "  Progressive 
Bookkeeping,"  we  should  think  it  might  be  well  for  some  one  to 
examine  his  accounts. 

A  good  deal  of  fun  has  been  made  —  and  nobody  in  such  a  grim 
trial  as  this  ought  to  object,  even  at  his  own  expense,  to  a  little 
fun  flashed  over  its  dark,  but  we  hope  not  angry,  face  —  of  the 
expression  used  on  our  side  that  this  was  meant  to  l)e  a  ''  friendly 
suit."  I  need  not  remind  you.  Gentlemen,  that  this  is  a  recog- 
nized use  of  terms  to  describe  a  case  as  to  which  both  parties  seek 
conclusive  judgment,  and  therefore  join  in  amicable  submission  of 
it  to  the  proper  authority.  It  certainl}-  appeared  to  us  to  be  emi- 
neuth'  for  the  advantage  of  the  Professors  to  obtain  your  official 
endorsement  of  their  course,  if  they  are  right  in  it ;  and  we  should 
have  been  glad  to  have  joined  them,  and  borne  our  half  of  the 
trouble  and  expense  of  a  legal  inquiry  which  might  have  had  that 
end  —  which  it  is  to  be  presumed  must  have  reached  that  end, 
should  it  prove  the  just  one.  Failing  this,  after  3'our  action  upon 
our  first  request,  no  alternative  was  open  to  us  but  to  go  forward 
as  we  have  done,  or  acknowledge  that  we  had  no  imperative  con- 
victions upon  the  subject  —  which,  as  honest  men,  we  could  not 
do. 

Another  expression  of  ours  has  been  severely  censured.  In  seek- 
ing to  make  plain  that  we  were  not  intending  a  trial  for  heres}',  we 
have  spoken  of  a  "  breach  of  trust. ' '  We  never  intended  to  charge, 
and  we  never  did  charge,  any  dishonesty  of  purpose  —  any  conspir- 
acy on  the  part  of  the  Professors  to  steal  a  Theological  Seminary. 
But  we  have  felt,  and,  after  all  of  explanation  so  far  made,  we  still 
feel,  tliat,  in  point  of  fact,  there  has  been,  on  the  part  of  the  Re- 
spondent, such  departure  from  teaching  at  Andover  what  its 
sainted  Founders  by  their  dead  hands  support  him  there  to  teach, 
as  amounts  to  an  actual  breach  of  trust.  But,  if  this  at  all,  surely, 
in  all  its  circumstances  and  consequences,  it  outsizes  any  tiling 
else  of  the  sort  in  the  annals  of  a  by  no  means  unspotted  century. 


108 

"We  have  never  questioned  the  eminent  character  as  Christians  and 
as  Christian  schoUars.  or  the  entire  sincerity,  of  these  gentlemen. 
"We  believe  that  they  have  believed  themselves  to  be  in  the  path  of 
duty.  They  had  a  right  to  that  opinion.  We  believed  they  were 
wrong,  and  we  had  a  right  to  that  opinion.  It  has  seemed  to  us 
that  others  were  as  much  —  some  even  more  —  to  be  blamed,  than 
these  Professors  ;  that  something  of  the  blame  runs  back  into  the 
spirit  of  the  age  — an  age  when  public  conscience  has  been  weak- 
ened till  there  is  a  sort  of  common  judgment  that  what  under  any 

[ color  may  be  done  lawfully,  may  be  done  rightly. 

One  more  suggestion  seems  needful  here  —  after  many  things 
which  have  been,  almost  bitterly,  said  —  to  make  our  position  justly 
understood.  We  have  never  opposed,  nor  do  we  now  oppose, 
progress  under  the  Audover  Creed.  "We  beliove  in  theological 
progress  under  that  Creed  quite  as  heartily  as  the  Respondent  and 
his  associates  can  believe  in  it.  lu  all  respects,  and  to  all  extent, 
within  the  proper  sweep  and  circle  of  the  Evangelical  faith,  we 
rejoice  in  such  progress;  and  have  never  intended  to  intimate, 
and  never  have  intimated,  that  such  progress  is  wrong.  That  is 
why  we  never  found  fault  with  Moses  Stuart  —  ckirnm  et  venera- 
bile  nomen  —  or  Dr.  Park,  or  Dr.  Phelps,  or  anybody-  else  who  was 
simplv  trying  to  file  off  the  rust  of  an  excessive  Old  Schoolism. 
and  oil  the  joints  of  the  machine,  so  that  it  could  work  without 
the  squeak  and  friction  of  the  dark  ages  lingering  aV)out  it.  They 
were  doing  what,  under  the  Creed  fairly  interpi-eted  by  the  re- 
corded compromises  and  intent  of  the  Founders,  they  had  a  per- 
fect right  to  do.  Aud  if  the  Respondent  had  been  doing  nothing 
more  than  this,  we  would  have  admired  and  applauded  his  every 
just  achievement.  AVe  do  not  object  to  the  phrase  '•  substance  of 
doctrine,"  within  its  proper  limits.  But  there  must  be  a  limit 
somewhere,  which  shall  bound  this  progress.  And  we  understood 
the  need  of  that  limit  stringently  to  assert  itself  somewhere  be- 
tween the  positions  of  Prof.  Park  and  the  late  Theodore  Parker ; 
and  when  it  began  to  look  as  if  that  line  ought  to  be  drawn  behind 
these  progressing  theolo'jians.  it  liecame  time  for  serious  thought 
and  examination.     But  I  shall  revert  to  this  hereaftei'. 

And.  now.  Gentlemen.  I  am  to  argue  before  you  the  eleventh 
charge  of  the  list,  to  wit.  that  tl:e  Respondent  holds  and  inculcates  : 

That  there  in,  and  trill  he,  probation  after  death  for  all  men  v:ho  do  not 
decisively  reject  Christ  durintj  the  earthly  life  ;  and  that  this  should  be  em- 
phasized, made  VTjluential,  and  even  central  in  systematic  theology. 


109 

The  Respondeut  has  made  answer  liy  admitting  that  he  holds 
and  advocates  the  dogma  of  possible  probation  after  death.  V>ut 
denies  that  he  wonld  have  it  emphasized  and  made  central  in 
systematic  theology  ;  and  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  Creed  of 
the  Seminary.  I  do  not  regard  the  matter  of  emphasis  as  of 
importance,  and  so.  without  further  reference  to  that.  I  join  issue 
with  him  upon  the  main  substance  of  the  allegation,  and  I  insist, 
and  hope  to  prove,  that,  taken  with  its  Statutes,  the  Seminary 
Creed  is  so  phrased  as  to  make  it  impossible  for  a  believer  in 
probation  after  death,  honestly,  not  to  say  honorably,  to  hold  the 
place  of  Professor  under  it ;  and  therefore  that  the  said  Respond- 
ent does  not,  as  to  this,  ''maintain  and  inculcate  the  Christian 
faith  as  expressed  in  the  Creed  ;  "  and.  therefore,  that  he  is  liable 
to  the  third  Article  of  the  Associate  Statutes,  which  declares  that 
'•no  man  shall  be  continued  a  Professor  on  said  [Associate] 
Foundation,  who  shall  not  continue  to  approve  himself  a  man  of 
sound  and  Orthodox  principles  in  Divinity  agreeably  to  the  n/ore- 
said  Creed;"  and  that  he  is  further  liable  to  the  clause  of  the 
twentieth  Article  of  the  said  Associate  Statutes,  which  makes  it 
the  duty  of  the  Reverend  and  Houoral)le  Visitors  to  "  take  care, 
that  the  duties  of  every  Professor  on  this  Foundation  be  intelligi- 
bly and  faithfully  discharged,  and  to  admonish  or  remove  him. 
either  for  misbehavior,  heterodoxy,  incapacity',  or  neglect  of  the 
duties  of  his  office;"  and  to  see  that  the  "true  intentions  "  of 
the  Founders,  "as  expressed  in  these  our  Statutes,  be  faithfully 
executed." 

I.  I  ask  your  consideration,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  x>roposition 
that,  taken  as  a  tchole.  the  Andover  Creed  icas  so  apjjroached.  so 
originated  and  so  impregnated,  and  is  so  shaped  and  historically 
braced,  and  morally  fortified  in  every  direction  from  ivhich  such  a 
notion  could  come ;  as  to  make  it  to  the  last  degree  improbable  that 
the  dogma  of  probation  after  this  life  can  be  fairly  found  in.  or  can 
he  honestly  harmonized  tcith.  it.  What  had  been  the  faith  of  the 
Christian  world  on  that  subject  from  the  beginning?  And  what 
was  it  in  New  England  in  the  sunuuer  of  1805.  when,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  election  of  Henry  "Ware  as  HoUis  Professor  in  Har- 
vard College,  Samuel  Al»bot  altered  the  will  by  which  two  3-ears 
before  he  had  made  that  College  his  residuary  legatee  for  the 
support  of  theological  students  ;  revoking  that  bequest  and  or- 
daining and  directing  that  the  money  be  given  instead  to  the 
trustees  of  Phillips  Academy  [^  Woods.  oOj   "to  be  appropriated 


110 

to  the  support  of  a  Theological  Professor  in  said  Academy,  of 
sound,  Orthodox.  Calvinistic  principles  of  divinity,  and  for  the 
maintenance  of  students  m  divinity"?  The  quality  of  the  soil 
with  the  environment,  largely  determines  the  nature  of  plant- 
growth.  There  are  six  thousand  species  of  sea-weed,  but  you 
cannot  find  one  of  them  in  the  interior  of  Africa,  or  on  the  top 
of  Mount  "Washington.  In  what  kind  of  theological  soil  —  so  far 
as  Eschatology  was  concerned  —  did  the  Andover  Creed  germi- 
nate? 

Some  just  answer  may  usefulh^  be  approached  along  two  nearly 
parallel  lines  :  by  a  rapid  glance  at  the  type  of  theological  thought 
on  the  subject  through  the  patristic  writers  down  to  the  beginning 
of  the  19th  century ;  and  by  some  succinct  review  of  the  CEcu- 
menical,  denominational  and  Church  Creeds  to  the  same  period. 

1.  There  can  ha  no  doubt  as  to  the  conviction  of  the  great  thinkers 
of  the  Early  Church.  In  the  middle  of  the  second  century  we 
find  Justin  Martyr  using  with  the  Emperor  \_Apologia  Prima^ 
e.  xii.]  the  plea  : 

And  more  than  all  other  men  are  we  your  helpers  and  allies  in  promoting 
peace,  seeing  that  we  bold  this  view,  that  it  is  alike  nnpossible  for  the 
wicked,  the  covetous,  the  conspirator,  and  for  the  virtuous,  to  escape  the 
notice  of  God,  and  that  each  man  goes  to  everlasting  punishment,  or  salva- 
tion, according  to  the  value  of  his  actions.  For  if  all  men  knew  this,  no 
one  would  choose  wickedness  even  for  a  little,  knowing  that  he  goes  to  the 
everlasting  punishment  of  fire,  but  would  by  all  means  restrain  himself,  and 
adorn  himself  with  virtue,  that  he  might  obtain  the  good  gifts  of  God,  and 
escape  the  punishments. 

During  the  terrible  pestilence  which  ravaged  the  most  populous 
provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire  a  little  after  the  middle  of  the 
third  century,  Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  writing  on  the  Mor- 
tality \_De  Mortalitate,  xv.]  said  to  the  pagans  around  them  : 

The  fact,  that,  without  any  difference  between  one  and  another,  the 
righteous  die  as  well  as  the  unrighteous,  is  no  reason  for  you  to  suppose 
that  it  is  a  common  death  for  the  good  and  evil  alike.  The  righteous  are 
called  to  their  place  of  refreshing,  the  unrighteous  are  snatched  away  to 
punishment;  safety  is  the  more  speedily  given  to  the  faithful,  penalty  to  the 
unbelieving. 

In  the  same  century  Hippolytus  \_Omnium  Hceresiuni  Refntatio. 
X.  30]  refuting  all  heresies,  as  he  draws  toward  his  conclusion, 
exhorts  all  that  inhabit  Europe  aud  Asia  and  Libya : 


Ill 

Do  not  devote  your  attention  to  the  fallacies  of  artificial  discourses,  nor 
the  vain  promises  of  plagiarizins:  heretics,  but  to  the  venerable  simplicity  of 
unassuming  truth:  and  by  means  of  this  knowledge  you  shall  escape  tin- 
approaching  threat  of  the  tire  of  judgment,  and  the  rayless  scenerj-  of  gloomy 
Tartarus,  ichere  never  .sluues  a  beam  from  the  irradtatlnj  voice  of  the  Word .' 

Five-and-twenty  years  later  we  reach  Aruobius,  the  gifted  Xu- 
midian  rhetorician,  who  \_Ad versus  Gentes,  II :  14,  53]  as  a  relief 
for  his  mind  propounded  the  theory*  of  annihilation  for  those  dying 
in  sin  : 

They  are  cast  in  [to  the  river  of  fire],  and,  being  annihilated,  pass  away 
vainly  in  everlasting  destruction. 

A  century  later  Augustine  [Enchiridion,  ex.]  announced  it  as  a 
doctrine  settled  m  theology  : 

It  is  in  this  life  that  all  the  merit  or  demerit  is  acquired,  which  can  either 
relieve  or  aggravate  a  man's  sufferings  after  this  life.  Xo  one,  then,  need 
hope  that,  after  he  is  dead,  he  shall  obtain  merit  with  God  which  he  has 
neglected  to  secure  here  ■ 

adding  that  ''the  services  which  the  Church  celebrates  for  the 
dead  "  are  in  harmony  with  this  view.  And  in  one  of  his  Letters 
to  Evodius  [Ejnstolce,  clxiv.  13]  he  inquires  concerning  a  pro- 
posed exegesis  of  the  "  spirits  in  prison  "  text  : 

If  we  admit  this  opinion,  according  to  which  we  are  warranted  in  suppos- 
ing that  men  who  did  not  believe  while  they  were  in  life  can  in  Hades 
[apud  inferos]  believe  in  Christ,  who  can  bear  the  contradictions  both  of 
reason  and  faith  which  must  follow  ? 

It  is  surely  of  some  significance  that  this  greatest  father  of  the 
Latin  Church,  of  whom  it  has  been,  no  doubt  truly,  said,  that  ••  no 
one  mind  ever  made  such  an  impression  upon  Christian  thought." 
should  have  gone  on  to  raise  against  the  notion  of  the  possibility 
of  repentance  after  death  the  two  following  objections  —  having 
singular  pertinence  to  the  phase  of  discussion  now  present  [Ibid.]  : 

In  the  first  place,  if  this  were  true,  we  shoulil  seem  to  have  no  reason  for 
mourning  over  those  who  have  departed  from  the  body  without  that  grace, 
and  it  would  be  of  no  use  to  be  anxious,  and  urgently  to  exhort  men  to  ac- 
cept it  before  they  die.  lest  they  should  be  punished  with  everlasting  death. 
If,  further,  it  be  taught  that  in  Hades  [apud  inferos]  those  only  believe  to  no 
purpose  [inutiliter  atque  infnictuoHe]  who  refused  here  on  earth  to  accept  the 
preached  gospel,  but  that  to  iielieve  there  will  profit  those  who  never  despised 
that  which  they  had  it  not  in  their  power  to  hear  in  this  world,  another  still 
greater  absiu-dity  follows  [aliud  sequitur  absurdius]  to  wit,  that  forasmuch 


112 

as  all  men  surely  will  die,  and  it  is  better  for  them  to  go  into  TTades  wholly  free 
from  the  guilt  of  having  despised  the  gospel,  —  since  otherwise  it  can  do  them 
no  good  to  believe  it  when  they  come  there  —  the  gospel  ought  not  to  be 
preached  on  earth;  which  to  think  is  as  silly  as  it  is  impious  [quod  sentire, 
Impite  vanitatis  est]. 

Origeu  alone  of  the  patristic  writers  distinctly  affirmed  the  pos- 
sibility of  reconciliation  to  God  after  death,  saying  IHom.  in 
Levit.  ix.  5]  : 

A  day  of  propitiation  remains  to  its  until  the  going  down  of  the  sun;  that 
is,  until  the  end  of  the  world. 

He,  too,  \_Joan.  torn.  xix.  3]  predated  those  ingenious  modern 
expositors  who  interpret  the  declaration  of  the  Saviour  that  the  siu 
against  the  Holy  Ghost  [Matt.  xii.  32]  shall  be  forgiven  "  neither 
in  this  world  nor  in  that  which  is  to  come,"  as  giving  veiled  an- 
nouncement of  the  possibility  of  post-mortem  forgiveness  for  other 
sins.  There  were  also  two  or  three  writers  in  the  4th  and  5th 
centuries  who  thought  some  form  of  restoration  not  impossible. 

The  early  conceptions  of  the  Intermediate  State  —  under  the 
suggestions  of  Origen,  the  suppositions  of  Augustine,  and  the  defi- 
nite declarations  of  Gregory  the  Great,  slid  readily  into  the  Rom- 
ish doctrine  of  Purgatory  ;  a  doctrine  which  —  as  I  need  not  remind 
you  —  taken  with  its  connections,  distinctly  repudiates  all  idea  of 
probation  after  this  life  —  Purgatory  being  for  tlie  imperfectly 
righteous,  and  not  at  all  for  the  wicked.  And  when  Protestantism, 
centuries  after,  began  to  frame  its  ideas  into  propositions,  it  spoke 
strongly  and  squarely,  and  almost  uniformh^,  to  the  point  that  sal- 
vation lies  this  side  the  grave  ;  continuing  so  to  speak  until  the 
recent  speculations  of  Kahnis,  Oosterzee,  Dorner,  Martensen,  and 
others,  whose  influence,  I  take  it,  has  assembled  us  here  to-day. 

The  view  which  prevailed  among  godly  men  in  England  when 
this  country  was  settled,  is  very  well  shown  in  that  once  greatly 
thought  of,  but  now  seldom  seen.  Treatise  of  Christian  Religion, 
which  was -published  in  complete  form  in  IGIG,  under  the  super- 
vision of  the  executors  of  the  renowned  Thomas  Cartwright.  It 
[72]  speaks  thus  : 

Q.  Hithrrto  of  the  punishmeutf<  [of  sin]  in  this  life:  What  are  they  in  the 
life  to  come  ? 

A.  They  are  most  horrible  and  vnspeakable :  first,  the  soules  of  the  wicked, 
after  this  life,  are  sent  immediately  to  hell,  vntill  the  day  of  ludgement:  then 
at  the  day  of  ludgement,  their  Bodies  shall  bee  ioyned  to  their  Soules,  and  both 


113 

together  shall  be  tormented  in  hell  fire  euerlastingly:  and  so  much  the  more 
tormented  there,  by  how  much  they  haue  had  more  freedome  from  paine  of 
body,  and  anguish  of  soule,  and  losse  of  outward  things  in  this  life. 

Such  having  been  upon  this  suViject  the  direction  of  Christian 
thought  and  faith  as  revealed  by  the  great  scholars  of  the  Church 
through  eighteen  centuries,  I  ask  you  next  to  examine  : 

2.  The  testimony  of  the  Creeds.  On  7  October  last,  at  Des 
Moines,  the  Respondent  declared  before  the  American  Board  of 
Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions,  that  neither  the  Gospel  nor 
the  consensus  of  Christendom,  condemns  the  doctrine  of  probation 
after  death.  Speaking  [Great  Debate,  17]  of  the  denial  of  the 
wisdom  of  sending  out  as  missionaries  those  who  are  not  pre- 
pared to  declare  that  mens'  only  chance  for  salvation  is  in  this  life, 
he  used  these  words  : 

I  say  in  all  calmness,  but  with  a  conviction  that  has  been  deepened  and 
matured  by  all  the  experiences  of  these  trying  times,  that  [denial]  is  putting 
into  the  Gospel  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  what  the  Gospel  itself 
does  not  contain,  and  what  the  Creeds  of  Christendom  have  not  put  there. 
You  may  go  through  all  the  CEcumenical  Creeds  —  and  I  know  them  almost 
by  heart  —  and  there  is  nothing  of  the  sort  in  them.  I  have  been  through 
the  Creeds  of  our  local  Churches,  many  and  many  of  them,  and  the  doctrine 
is  not  there. 

Gentlemen.  I  am  not  a  professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  and 
I  do  not  know  those  venerable  Symbols  by  heart  —  I  therefore 
desire  to  speak  with  becoming  modesty  ;  but  I  heard  this  declara- 
tion, when  it  was  made,  with  an  amazement  which  was  deepened 
when  I  came  home  to  my  own  library  again.  As  this  is  not  a  trial 
for  heresy,  the  question  whether  probation  after  this  life  be  a  part 
of  the  Gospel,  is  aside  from  our  immediate  discussion  ;  but  the 
question  what  has  been  the  attitude  towards  it  of  the  Creeds  of 
Christendom  is  germane  to  our  inquiry,  and  assumes  a  very  seri- 
ous importance  as  we  approach  the  interpretation  of  the  Andover 
Creed.  Of  course  we  cannot  forget,  that,  as  an  element  of  denial 
and  antagonism  lies  very  near  to  the  heart  of  any  Creed,  it  is  never 
safe  to  infer  that  such  a  Symbol  is  hospitable  to  every  notion  which 
it  may  not  in  terms  denounce.  Dr.  Schaff,  in  his  great  work  on 
The  Creeds  of  Christendom  [i.  8]  says: 

The  first  object  of  Creeds  was  to  distinguish  the  Church  from  the  world, 
from  Jews  and  Heathen:  afterwards  orthodoxy  from  heresy;  and,  finally, 
denomination  from  denomination. 


114 

Almost  always  a  new  Creed  has  been  framed  as  a  polemic  pro- 
test against  some  dogma  thought  to  need  rejection.  So  that  if  the 
fact  were  that  absolute  and  uuhiutiug  silence  reigned  in  the  Creed- 
world  as  to  the  dogma  in  question,  that  would  more  prove  its  non- 
existence, than  its  presence  with  general  acquiescence. 

Now  let  us  take  a  look  at  the  great  Denominational  Creeds  of 
Christendom, — five-aud-twenty  to  five-and-tbirty,  in  all  —  which 
the  Respondent  says  have  nothing  against  probation  after  death  in 
them.  They  fall  into  four  classes  :  ( 1 )  the  ancient  Catholic  Creeds  ; 
(2)  those  of  the  Romish  Church  from  Trent  to  the  Vatican;  (3) 
those  of  the  Eastern  or  Greek  Church  ;  and  (4)  those  of  the  mod- 
ern Protestant  churches.  Those  of  the  first  class  include  but  the 
few  fundamental  ideas  which  are  common  to  all  periods  and 
churches;  of  which  that  called  the  Apostles',  the  Nicene,  and  the 
Athanasian  are  chief.  The  latter  contains  a  single  statement 
[clauses  40,  41,  42]  which,  I  rcspectfulh"  submit,  in  its  connec- 
tion, seems  most  naturally  to  teach  that  the  things  done  in  the 
body  are  those  in  view  of  which  men  are  to  be  finall}-  assized,  viz.  : 

From  whence  He  shall  come  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead ;  at  whose 
coming  all  men  shall  rise  again  with  their  bodies;  and  shall  give  account  for 
their  own  works;  and  they  that  have  done  good,  shall  go  into  life  everlast- 
ing: and  they  that  have  done  evil  into  everlasting  fire. 

The  perfectly  balanced  parallelism  obvious  here  between  the  two 
classes,  added  to  the  known  opinions  of  the  time,  seems  to  warrant 
construing  this  against  the  dogma. 

Passing  into  the  second  class,  it  is  obvious  that  the  general 
drift  of  ''The  Canons  and  Decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent"  is 
toward  the  doctrine  that  salvation  is  possible  onh*  to  him  who  in 
this  life  is  reconciled  to  the  Church  ;  and  it  is  explained  [14th  Ses- 
sion, chap,  vii.]  that  all  priests  may  absolve  all  penitents  in  ar- 
ticido  mortis^  "■  lest  any  may  perish  "   for  lack  of  such  absolution. 

The  Eastern  Church  is  more  explicit.  Its  "Orthodox  Confes- 
sion" [Qucestio  LXIV.]  cites  Theophylact  commenting  on  Luke, 
and  Matthew,  in  proof  that  penitence  in  the  future  world  is  not  pos- 
sible ;  with  which  agrees  the  372d  Question  and  Answer  of  "  The 
Longer  Catechism  of  the  Eastern  Church."  thus  : 

"  372.  In  ivhat  state  are  the  souls  of  the  dead  till  the  [/eneral  resurrec- 
tion ?    Ans.     The  souls  of  the  righteous  are  in  light  and  rest,  with  a  fLiv- 


115 

taste  of  eternal  happiness;  but  the  souls  of  the  wicked  are  in  o  state  the 
reverse  of  this"  —-winch  can  hardly  be  a  state  of  continued  probationary 
privilege. 

Passing  on  into  the  Creeds  of  the  Modern  Protestant  Churches, 
I  pause  a  moment  with  an  utterance  of  the  Vaudois,  of  date  A.D. 
1126  [J.  Leger,  Hist.  Gen.  des  ^glis.  Vaxul.  etc.  85]  which  sums 
itself  up  into  the  marginal  note  \_iiul  remMe  apr^s  la  mart]  ''  there 
is  no  remed}'  after  death  for  a  life  of  impenitence." 

The  Second  Helvetic  [A.D.  1566]  was  chief  of  the  Swiss  Con- 
fessions—  at  once  most  elaborate,  and  most  catholic  —  and  found 
warm  approval  among  nearly  all  the  Refonned  Churches  on  the 
Continent,  as  well  as  in  England  and  Scotland.  It  [chap.  xxvi. 
3]  has  this  deliverance  : 

AVe  believe  that  the  faithful,  after  bodily  death,  do  go  directly  unto  Christ, 
and,  therefore,  do  not  stand  in  need  of  helps  or  prayers  for  the  dead,  or  any 
other  such  duty  of  them  that  are  alive.  In  like  manner,  we  believe  that  the 
unbelievers  are  cast  headlong  into  hell,  from  whence  there  is  no  return 
opened  to  the  wicked  by  any  offices  of  those  who  live. 

Another  of  the  great  Reformed  Confessions  is  the  Belgic,  writ- 
ten by  Guy  de  Bres  at  about  the  same  date  with  that  to  which  I 
have  just  referred,  for  the  Churches  of  Flanders  and  the  Low 
Countries  ;  and  revised,  in  1619,  by  the  Synod  of  Dort.  From  that 
revision  I  cite  [Art.  XXXVII.  (2)]  : 

Then  the  books  (that  is  to  say  the  consciences)  shall  be  opened,  and  the 
dead  judged  according  to  what  they  shall  have  done  in  this  world,  whether  it 
be  good  or  evil. 

The  Heidelberg  Catechism,  [A.D.  1563]  the  ripe  doctrinal  fruit 
of  the  Reformation  in  the  Palatinate,  speaks  on  the  subject  before 
us  mainly  by  implication.  But  in  its  answer  to  the  44th  question, 
—  of  the  descent  into  Hades  — and  to  the  52d,  —of  Christ's  com- 
ing again  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead  —  it  uses  language 
which  the  commentators  of  its  own  Church  firmly  consider  as 
authoritative  on  this  subject.  In  regard  to  the  former,  Dr. 
Bethuue  [^Lectures  on  the  Heid.  Cat.  i.  404]  is  led  to  comment 
thus  : 

All  well-taught  Christians  believe  that,  though  the  disembodied  soul  of 
the  wicked  man  goes  to  the  hell  of  fire,  and  the  soul  of  the  pious  man  goes 
to  heaven,  at  once,  the  one  will  receive  a  great  accession  of  miserj-,  the  other 
of  bliss,  when  souls  are  united  again  to  their  proper  bodies;  because  then 
the  entire  man  will  sufifer  or  enjoy  with  greater  intensity. 


116 

And  in  1652,  Petrus  de  Witt  published  a  Catechizing  upon  the 
Heidelbergh  Catechisme,  which,  after  inspection,  received  the  appro- 
bation of  the  Classis  of  Hoorn,  and.  after  sixteen  editions,  was 
translated  for  the  use  of  the  English  Reformed  Congregation  in 
Amsterdam,  in  1654.  The  Tercentenary  Committee  [Hist.  Introcl. 
to  Heid.  Cat.  (1863),  67]  say  that  this  Catechizing  was  "  repub- 
lished a  great  many  times,  and  had  an  immense  reputation." 
It  is  safe,  then,  to  infer  that  it  rightl}'  gives  the  inner  sense  of  the 
.Symbol,  on  the  topic  in  dispute,  as  it  was  understood  at  the  time. 
Under  Question 'LMW.  [Sub-question  25,  Do  not  the  souls  of  unbeliev- 
ers jiresently  go  to  Hell  ?]   it  says  : 

Ans.  There  is  a  Hell  into  which  they  go  presently  after  their  death,  [John 
iii.  36;  Isa.  Ivii.  21,  Ixvi.  2-4].  Which  Christ  [Mark  ix.  44,  48]  expressly 
explaineth  of  Hell  and  eternal  condemnation.  .  .  .  But  the  uttermost  and 
highest  degree  of  Damnation  shall  be  after  judgement,  in  Soul  and  Body 
together  [2  Cor.  v.  10]. 

Of  very  nearly  the  same  date  was  the  Confession  Belevit  and 
Professit  be  the  Protestantis  of  Scotland.,  and  confirmed  b}'  Gen- 
eral Assembly  and  by  Parliament ;  in  which  we  find  this  state- 
ment —  I  translate  from  the  Latin  of  Patrick  Adamson  [Art. 
XVII.]  : 

The  elect  who  are  dead  enjoy  rest  from  their  labors,  peace  and  tran- 
quillity. .  .  .  But,  on  the  other  hand,  reprobates  and  unbelievers  who  are 
dead  live  in  troubles  and  tortures  which  it  is  impossible  for  words  to 
express. 

Even  more  clearly  spake  the  Irish  Articles  of  Religion  [of  date 
A.D.  1615]  [Section  101,]  thus: 

101.  After  this  life  is  ended  the  souls  of  God's  children  be  presently 
received  into  Heaven,  there  to  enjoy  unspeakable  comforts;  the  souls  of  the 
wicked  are  cast  into  hell,  there  to  endure  endless  torments. 

In  1644  was  published  the  first  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Eng- 
lish Baptists,  which  was  printed  again  in  1646.  Its  52d  Article 
[Confession,  p.  23]  was  thus: 

LII.  There  shall  be  a  resurrection  of  the  dead,  botli  of  the  just  and  unjust, 
and  every  one  shall  give  an  account  of  himselfe  to  God,  that  every  one  may 
receive  the  things  done  in  his  body,  according  to  that  he  hath  done,  whether 
it  be  good  or  bad. 

Moreover  the  Baptist  Catechism,  which  Mr.  E.  B.  Underhill 
[Hansard  KnoUy's  Soc.'s  Pubs.  Confessions,  etc.,  p.  xv.]  declares 


117 

to  "  give  a  complete  idea  of  the  prevailing  doctrinal  sentiments  of 
the  Baptist  body  in  the  17th  century,"  has  this,  viz.  : 

Q.  42.     What  xhall  be  done  to  the  loicked  at  their  death  ? 

A.  The  souls  of  the  wicked  shall,  at  their  death,  be  cast  into  the  torments 
of  hell,  and  their  bodies  lie  in  their  graves,  till  the  resurrection  and  judgment 
of  the  Great  Day. 

We  have  in  order  of  time  now  reached  that  85nnbol,  which, 
from  its  relation  to  the  religious  history  of  our  Father  land, 
scarcely  less  than  for  its  formative  influence  over  the  Andover 
Creed,  has  most  value  for  our  research  —  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession, of  date  A.D.  16-47.  It  contains,  in  remarkably  clear  and 
emphatic  language,  two  utterances  on  this  subject,  from  distinct 
points  of  view.     [C.  xxxii.  1  ;  C.  xxxiii.  1]  : 

The  Bodies  of  men,  after  death,  retiu-n  to  dust,  and  see  corruption;  but 
their  Souls  (which  neither  die  nor  sleep)  having  an  immortal  subsistence, 
immediately  return  to  God  who  gave  them.  The  Souls  of  the  Righteous, 
being  then  made  perfect  in  holinesse,  are  received  into  the  highest  heavens, 
where  they  behold  the  face  of  God  in  light  and  glory,  waiting  for  the  full 
redemption  of  their  Bodies.  And  the  Souls  of  the  wicked  are  cast  into 
Hell,  where  they  remain  in  torments  and  utter  darknesse,  reserved  to  the 
Judgment  of  the  great  Day.  Beside  these  two  places  for  Souls  separated 
from  their  Bodies,  the  Scripture  acknowledgeth  none.  .  .  . 

God  hath  appointed  a  Day  wherein  he  will  judge  the  World  in  righteous- 
nesse  by  Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  all  power  and  judgment  is  given  of  the 
Father.  In  which  Day  not  only  the  apostate  Angels  shall  be  judged,  but 
likewise  all  persons,  that  have  lived  upon  Earth,  shall  appear  before  the 
Tribunal  of  Christ,  to  give  an  account  of  their  Thoughts,  Words  and 
Deeds ;  and  to  receive  according  to  what  they  have  done  in  the  Body, 
whether  good  or  evil. 

In  the  following  year  the  Synod  of  Cambridge,  N.E.,  adopted 
this  AVestminster  Symbol  —  thus  anticipating  by  ten  years  the  sim- 
ilar action  of  the  English  Independents.  In  1680  the  Synod  of 
Boston  readopted  the  same.  In  1708  the  Sj-nod  of  Saybrook, 
Conn.,  again  endorsed  it.  The  Boston  National  Council  of  1865 
in  its  session  on  the  Burial  Hill  of  Plymouth  pathetically  said  : 

[_Bebates  and  Proceedings  of  Nat.  Council,  361 :  — ] 

Standing  by  the  rock  where  the  Pilgrims  set  foot  upon  these  shores,  upon 
the  spot  where  they  worshipped  God,  and  among  the  graves  of  the  early 
generations,  we.  Elders  and  Messengers  of  the  Congregational  Churches  of 
the  United  States,  in  National  Council  assembled  —  like  them  acknowledging 
no  Bule  of  faith  but  the  Word  of  God  — do  now  declare  our  adherence  to 


118 

the  Faith  and  Order  of  the  Apostolic  and  Primitive  Churches  held  by  our 
Fathers,  and  substantially  as  embodied  in  the  Confessions  and  Platforms 
which  our  Synods  of  1648  and  1680  set  forth,  or  reaffirmed. 

And  when,  at  Oberlin,  O.,  iu  1871  \^Minutes  of  Xat.  Council, 
(1871,)  63]  the  National  Triennial  Council  was  established,  our 
denominational  faith  was  still  declared  to  be  : 

In  substantial  accordance  with  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Christian  faith, 
commonly  called  Evangelical,  held  in  our  Churches  from  the  early  times,  and 
sufficiently  set  forth  by  former  General  Councils. 

Granting  to  this  qualifying  word  '•  substantially"  all  breadth 
and  force  which  history  can  legitimately  put  into  it,  or  ethics  fairly 
allow  in  it,  there  must  still  remain  the  clear  conclusion  that  the 
"Westminster  is,  more  nearly  than  any  thing  else,  our  actual  Con- 
gregational Creed  to-day. 

The  "Westminster  Catechisms — Larger  and  Shorter,  followed 
the  Confession  from  the  Assembly's  hands,  so  that  everywhere 
they  must  gain  their  true  interpretation  from  it.  The  Larger  says, 
in  the  last  clause  of  its  answer  to  the  Question  [ed.  1723,  p.  80]  : 

Q.  What  is  the  communion  in  glory  icith  Christ  which  the  members  of 
the  Invisible  Church  enjoy  immediately  after  death  ? 

Ans.  [I.  c]  Whereas  the  souls  of  the  wicked  are  at  Death  cast  into  Hell, 
where  they  remain  in  Torments  and  utter  Darkness,  and  their  Bodies  kept  in 
their  Graves,  as  in  their  Prisons,  till  the  Eesurrection  and  Judgment  of  the 
Great  Day. 

It  has  been  thought  remarkable  by  some  who  have  never  made 
themselves  minutely  familiar  with  the  facts  —  and  I  ask  your  at- 
tention to  this,  as  having  close  connection  with  what  I  shall  have 
occasion  to  submit  to  your  Honors'  notice  by  and  by  —  that  while, 
in  answering  the  37th  question,  the  Shorter  Catechism  declares 
that  at  death  the  souls  of  believers  '"do  immediately  pass  into 
glory"  it  says  nothing  at  all  about  what,  at  death,  becomes  of 
the  souls  of  the  wicked.  Robert  Baillie  —  that  garrulous  and  con- 
venient Scotchman  whose  Letters  and  Journals  shed  such  an  elec- 
tric light  upon  many  previously  dark  passages  in  the  work  of  the 
"Westminster Divines.  —  says  under  the  date  of  23  Aug.  1648  [in: 
59]  : 

We  passed  both  the  Larser  and  Shorter,  as  a  part  of  uniformitie:  but  we 
thought  the  Shorter  too  long,  and  too  high  for  our  common  people  and 
children,  and  so  put  it  in  ilr.  David  Dickson's  hand,  to  draw  it  shorter  and 


•  119 

clearer.  Of  this  he  was  carefiill,  and  presented  lis  with  a  draught  before  the 
end  of  the  AssembHe,  which  truely  was  very  good  and  exact;  but  yet  so  high 
and  long,  that  it  was  recommitted  to  Mr.  John  Levingstone. 

"Which  Geo.  Gillespie  confirmed  iu  his  speech  at  Edinburgh, 
6  Aug.  1647  [Ibid.,  p.  452],  when  he  said: 

We  have  found  great  diflficulty  how  to  make  it  [the  Catechism]  full,  such 
as  might  be  expected  from  an  Assembly,  and,  upon  the  other  part,  how  to 
condescend  to  the  capacity  of  the  common  and  unlearned. 

The  exact  truth  with  regard  to  this  feature  of  the  Shorter  Cate- 
chism, then,  seems  to  be,  that  in  the  repeated  recensions  to  which 
it  was  subjected  in  the  endeavor  to  reduce  its  inordinate  original 
length,  the  Assembly  retained  the  first  part  of  the  Answer  to  the 
37th  question,  affirming  that  the  souls  of  believers  "do  inimedi- 
atel}'  pass  into  glory,"  because  it  was  needed  as  a  protest  against 
Purgatory,  but  expunged  the  second  —  and  balancing  —  portion  — 
given  both  in  the  Confession  and  the  Larger  Catechism  —  appar- 
ently because  nobody  was  then  known  to  deny  that  the  wicked 
went  at  once  to  their  award,  so  that  the  assertion  being  practically 
needless,  could  be  spared  ;  the  more  that  more  circuitously,  yet 
by  eas}-  inference,  the  same  conclusion  follows  from  other  declara- 
tions of  the  same  Sj'mbol. 

It  is  a  rule  of  interpretation  which  is  as  common  as  it  is  proper, 
that  an  abridgment  is  always  to  be  interpreted  by  the  full  work 
from  which  it  is  condensed — saving  only  when  it  is  of  subsequent 
date,  and  is  avowed  to  contain,  in  some  points,  emendation.  That 
this  could  not  be  the  case  here  becomes  evident  from  the  consid- 
eration that  the  Shorter  Catechism  [Mitchell's  Wesbninster  As- 
sembly, etc.  426-431  ;  Baillie's  Letters  and  Journals,  ii.  232,  242, 
248,  266,  272,  306,  336,  348,  379,  388,  403,  etc.]  was  under  dis- 
cussion at  the  same  time  with  the  Confession  and  the  Larger  Cate- 
chism, and  embodied  the  cotemporaneuus  judgment  of  the  same 
Divines.  It  is  therefore  fairly  to  be  construed  everj'where,  and 
always,  into  the  closest  doctrinal  unity  with  its  coetaueous  docu- 
ments. 

In  1658  a  Synod  of  some  two  hundred  Elders  and  Messengers  from 
one  hundred  and  twenty  English  Congregational  [Independent] 
Churches  which  had  met  in  the  Savoy,  unanimously  adopted  the 
"Westminster  Confession  —  with  slight  verbal  changes,  none  of 
which  touched  this  subject  —  as  their  Declaration  of  Faith. 
[Savoy  Declaration,  51,  52.] 


120 

In  1677,  the  English  Baptists  added  to  their  former  Confession, 
the  doing  of  the  same  thing,  retaining  however  the  upright  and 
downright  averment  that  the  deeds  done  in  the  body  determine  the 
conditions  of  man's  future  existence.  {^Confession  of  Faith,  etc. 
Schaff,  iii.  738.] 

In  1729  the  American  Presbj'teriau  Church  adopted  the  same 
Confession,  afterwards  adding  both  the  Larger  and  Shorter  Cat- 
echisms to  their  Standards  ;  all  of  which  remain  in  force  over 
their  from  seven  to  eight  thousand  congregations,  and  I  may  add 
their  Theological  Seminaries,  to-day. 

In  1742  American  Baptist  Churches  in  session  in  Philadelphia, 
adopted  the  Westminster  Confession  as  adapted  to  Baptist  use  by 
their  English  brethren,  leaving  unaltered  its  doctrinal  character. 

In  1813  the  Cumberland  Presbyterians  did  the  same  thing,  with 
slight  changes,  leaving  it  as  to  this,  unchanged. 

In  1834  the  Free  Will  Baptists  — as  they  then  called  themselves 
—  adopted  a  Confession  —  since  three  times  revised.  As  it  now 
stands  its  language  on  this  subject  {Schaff,  iii.  756]  is  : 

The  soul  does  not  die  with  the  body:  but  immediately  after  death  enters 
into  a  conscious  state  of  happiness  or  misery,  according  to  the  moral  char- 
acter here  possessed. 

Gentlemen,  the  Respondent  at  Des  Moines  declared  of  the  doc- 
trine that,  by  God's  plan,  salvation  needs  to  be  secured  in  this 
life,  that  ''  there  is  nothing  of  the  sort  "  in  '-the  Creeds  of  Chris- 
tendom." 1  have  shown  you,  in  most  cases  by  direct  citation,  in 
a  few  instances  by  close  and  necessary  inference,  that  he  was 
mistaken  in  regard  to  nineteen  of  them — the  Athanasian  ;  the 
Romish ;  the  Greek ;  the  Vaudois  ;  the  Heidelberg ;  the  Second 
Helvetic  :  the  Belgic  ;  the  Scotch  ;  the  Irish  ;  the  first  of  the  Eng- 
lish Baptists'  ;  the  Westminster  Confession,  with  its  Catechisms ; 
the  Cambridge  ;  the  Savoy  ;  the  final  English  Baptists'  ;  the  Say- 
l.rook;  the  American  Presbyterians' ;  the  American  Baptists'; 
the  Cumberland  Presbyterians',  and  the  Free-Will  Baptists' ;  most 
of  a  national  or  even  a  wider  scope  ;  none  including  fewer  than  the 
suffrages  of  an  entire  community  or  denomination  of  Christians 
—  among  them  being  those  whose  influence  most  went  to  shape 
the  early  years  of  this  country ;  and  all  together  representing  on 
this  subject  the  judgment  and  faith  of  an  immeasurable  majority 
of  the  Christian  world. 

To  this  may  be  added  in  the  same  direction,  in  a  slightly  differ- 


121 

ent  form,  the  Creedal  testimony  of  the  Established  Church  of  Eng- 
land, and  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country.  The 
Thirt^'-nine  Articles,  adopted  by  the  former  in  1562,  and  by  the 
latter  in  1801,  do  not  indeed  contain  direct  reference  to  the  Inter- 
mediate State.  But  the  XXXVth  Article  as  it  stands  to  this  day 
in  the  Standards  of  both  Churches  affirms  that  the  Second  Book  of 
the  Homilies  '•  doth  conteyne  a  godly  and  wholesome  doctrine, 
and  necessarie  for  these  tymes."  Now  we  find  in  the  Third  Part 
of  the  Homily  of  Repentance  in  that  book  \_HomUies.  (ed.  1676,) 
340]  the  following : 

But  as  we  are  most  certain  that  we  shall  die.  so  are  we  most  uncertain 
when  we  shall  die.  For  our  life  doth  lie  in  the  hand  of  God.  who  will  take 
it  away  when  it  pleaseth  Him.  And  verilj-  when  the  highest  Sumner  [sum- 
moner]  of  all,  which  is  death,  shall  come,  he  will  not  be  said  iiay,  but  we 
nuist  forthwith  be  packing,  to  be  present  before  the  Judgment  seat  of  God. 
as  he  doth  find  us,  according  as  it  is  written  ;  Whereas  the  Tree  falleth, 
whether  it  be  toward  the  South,  or  toward  the  North,  there  it  shall  lie. 
Whereimto  agreeth  the  saying  of  the  holy  Martyr  of  God  Saint  Cyprian,  say- 
ing: As  God  doth  find  thee  when  he  doth  call,  so  doth  he  judg  thee. 

The  Respondent  further  said  at  Des  Moines  {^Great  Debate^  17] 
—  a  fact  to  which  I  have  already  called  your  attention  —  that  he 
had  '-been  through  the  Creeds  of  our  local  churches,  many  and 
many  of  them,  and  the  doctrine  [of  the  denial  of  probation  after 
death]  is  not  there."  Xow.  Gentlemen,  for  the  purpose  in  hand 
we  care  nothing  about  the  aspect  towards  this  subject  of  the 
Creeds  now  in  use  in  our  local  churches,  although  we  should  not 
shrink  from  the  closest  examination  as  to  them.  But  it  is  of  some 
consequence  to  know  what  was  the  attitude  of  the  Congregational 
churches  of  Massachusetts  towiyd  this  matter  in  the  first  decade 
of  the  present  century,  when  the  Andover  Creed  was  formulated ; 
because  it  is  not  very  likely  that  the  parties,  were  they  Hopkinsians 
or  Old  Calvinists.  who  were  concerned  in  shaping  this  Creed  and 
founding  this  Institution,  slipped  quietly  into  that  most  exactly 
and  painfully  phrased  Declaration  of  Faith  a  doctrme  on  this,  or 
any  other  subject,  which  was  at  variance  with  the  Symbolic  Ortho- 
doxy of  the  time,  as  it  found  expression  in  the  formula?  which  were 
the  corner-stones  of  their  churches.  I  have  therefore  sought  to 
examine  the  Creeds  oi  fifty  of  those  churches  which,  in  1808,  were 
nearest  to  the  locality  where  the  Seminary  was  planted  —  churches 
of  the  vkinnge,  as  one  might  say.  in  the  phrase  now  current  —  all, 
or  nearly  all  —  selecting  none  and  neglecting  none  —  being  within 


122 

some  twenty  miles  of  Andover.  I  have  reached  the  following 
result.  I  will  not  take  time  to  specify  in  detail,  but,  if  called  for, 
I  will  declare  each  in  full,  and  where  the  proof  may  be  laid  hold 
of. 

I  find  seven  of  the  fifty  Creeds  to  have  been  modernized  since 
the  date  referred  to,  while  I  have  not  been  able  to  put  my  hand 
upon  that  form  of  sound  words  which  was  in  use  by  those  seven 
churches  so  long  ago.  I  find  no  single  instance  of  the  employ- 
ment of  any  language  which  suggests,  or  which  seems  intended 
to  leave  any  opportunity  for  the  esoteric  holding  of  the  notion 
of,  probation  after  this  life.  I  find  five  which  are  vague  in 
their  terms  which  touch  on  the  borders  of  that  subject,  —  a  good 
example  of  which  is  that  of  the  First  Church  in  Danvers,  which 
had  been  founded  in  1689,  being  "•  then  persuaded  in  matters  of 
faith  according  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  owned  and  consented 
unto  by  the  Elders  and  Messengers  of  the  Churches  assembled  at 
Boston  in  New  England,"  which  that  Church  had  modified,  in 
the  interest  of  brevity  and  perspicuity,  in  1757,  by  the  adoption 
of  twelve  articles  of  Faith,  the  11th  and  12th  of  which  are  these, 
[Rice's  Hist.  1st  Par.  Danvers,  77]  viz.  : 

You  believe  in  another  life  after  this,  and  that  Christ  will  come  again, 
and  raise  the  dead  and  judge  the  world,  and  that  we  must  all  appear  before 
the  judgment-seat  of  Christ,  [and]  that  at  the  last  day  the  wicked  shall  be 
adjudged  to  everlasting  punishment,  and  the  righteous  to  life  eternal. 

Here  is  no  definite  statement  which  necessarily  excludes  the 
possibility  of  repentance  and  forgiveness  after  death,  yet  surely 
there  is  nothing  in  the  language  to  favor  —  as  there  is  nothing  in 
the  circumstances  to  suggest  —  it.  As  I  said,  there  are  five  of  these. 
I  find  four  which  make  the  general  statement  that  the  impenitent 
man  shall  receive  a  ''  reward  according  to  his  works,"  or  "  deeds." 
I  find  one  which  declares  that  "all  who  remain  in  unbelief  till 
death,  will  be  immediately  doomed  to  the  world  of  misery  ;  "  one 
which  affirms  that  "such  as  live  and  die  unbelieving,  impenitent 
and  disobedient,  shall  suffer  the  vengeance  of  eternal  fire  ;  "  and 
one  which  sets  forth  that  "the  souls  of  the  wicked  enter  immedi- 
ately into  a  state  of  suffering,  and  the  righteous  of  blessedness." 
I  find  twelve  which  assert  that  the  wicked  shall  be  judged  "  ac- 
cording to  the  deeds  done  in  the  body."  And  I  find  nineteen 
which  refer  the  inquirer  to  the  "  Confession  of  Faith,  owned  and 
consented   unto,  by  the  Elders  and  Messengers  of  the  Churclies 


123 

assembled  at  Boston  in  New  England,  12  May  1680,"  on  this  sub- 
ject identical  in  terms  with  that  of  Savoy  and  Westminster ;  which 
we  have  already  seen  to  carry  a  double  denunciation  of  any  notion 
of  probation  after  death,  in  maintaining  that  men  shall  be  jiWged 
for  "  what  they  have  done  in  the  body,"  and  that  the  souls  of  the 
wicked  after  death  "  are  cast  into  hell,  where  they  remain  in  tor- 
ment and  utter  darkness,  reserved  to  the  Judgment  of  the  great 
Day." 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  pregnant  fact  that  of  forty-three  Con- 
gregational churches  —  all  which  I  have  been  able  to  test  as  to  this 
subject —  surrounding  the  spot  where  the  Andover  Seminary  came 
into  being,  at  the  hour  when  its  Creed  was  taking  shape,  not  one 
in  its  own  Creed  in  any  manner  favored  the  dogma  of  post-mortem 
probation ;  only  nine  refrained  from  some  statement  which  would 
be  necessarily  incompatible  with  it.  and  thirty-four  —  or  more  than 
seventy-nine  per  cent  —  in  terras  asserted  its  opposite.  And  yet 
my  honored  friend  says  he  has  gone  through  the  Creeds  of  our 
local  churches,  and  there  is  nothing  there  against  the  doctrine  of 
probation  after  death  I 

Now,  Gentlemen  of  this  Reverend  and  Honorable  Board,  we 
have  been  trying  to  get  some  conception  of  the  theological  quality 
of  the  soil  out  of  which  sprang  the  Andover  Creed,  with  particular 
reference  to  the  question  whether  there  may  exist  any  fair  ante- 
cedent probability  that  that  Creed  would  take  any  particular  shape 
of  friendship,  or  hostility  —  of  assent,  denial,  or  an  indifference 
which  might  silently  tolerate  —  toward  the  notion  of  probation 
after  this  life.  And  we  have  found  this,  namely,  that,  almost 
with  the  sole  exception  of  the  Neo-Platouic  Origen,  whose  intense 
conception  of  free-will  on  man's  side,  and  of  the  reformatory  rather 
than  the  punitive  intent  of  the  Divine  punishments  of  sin,  led  him 
to  teach  the  possible  final  restoration  of  all  offenders  —  including 
the  Devil,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  and  one  or 
two  others  who  achieved  from  the  Church  of  the  fifth  century  the 
odium  of  heresy  as  to  this,  down  to  the  beginning  of  the  present 
century  ;  the  consent  of  Church  writers  to  the  belief  that  the  things 
done  in  the  body  determine  men's  eternal  condition,  has  been  well- 
nigh  unbroken.  We  have  found  that  quite  to  the  present  time, 
those  "  Creeds  of  Christendom  "  which  enshrine  the  faith  of  the 
immense  majority  of  the  professedly  Christian  world,  whether  Prot- 
estant or  otlierwise,  declare  the  same  belief.  And  we  have  found 
that,  of    nearly   fifty  Congregational  churches  which  surrounded 


124 

Andover  Hill  when  the  foundations  of  the  Seminary  were  planted 
thereon,  not  one  favored  departure  from  the  old  theology  as  to 
this,  only  nine  failed  to  use  language  irreconcilable  with  it,  while 
nearly  eighty  per  cent  in  terms  asserted  its  opposite. 

But  I  am  attliis  point  reminded  that  our  distinguished  friend  the 
Professor  of  Law  from  New  York  City,  argued  before  us  that  a 
meliorating  movement,  springing  from  John  Robinson  and  his  influ- 
ence, even  made  some  mildness  at  AVestminster,  quite  melted  down 
the  early  Congregationalism  of  New  England,  and  eventually  left 
a  soft  spot  at  Andover.  I  fear  that  the  research  of  the  learned 
gentleman  has  neglected  the  nice  points  of  Dogmatic  History 
for  more  congenial  jurisprudence.  At  any  rate  he  is  wofully 
mistaken  in  this  judgment.  The  simple  fact  is  that  no  man  ever 
had  more  baseless  nonsense  talked  about  him  than  John  Robinson. 
A  good,  a  gracious,  a  gentle,  a  noble,  a  learned  and  tenderly 
devout  man,  with  great  sagacit}-  as  to  civil  affairs,  and  with  some 
strong  out-goings  towards  very  precious  new  ideas  ;  he  was  yet, 
in  his  theology,  wholly  and  inveterately,  a  man  of  his  own  age. 
The  Synod  of  Dort  was  scarcely  more  than  well  through  with  its 
work,  when  half  of  his  company  started  for  our  side  of  the  sea. 
Of  that  Synod  Motley  sa^-s  [John  of  Barnevelcl  11.  310],  and  I 
judge  that  he  speaks  the  exact  truth  : 

Arininians  were  pronounced  heretics,  schismatics,  teachers  of  false  doc- 
trines. ...  On  the  oOth  April  and  1st  May  the  Xetherland  Confession,  and 
the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  were  declared  to  be  infallible  —  no  change  was  to 
be  possible  in  either  formulary. 

Now  John  Robinson,  at  the  time  when  the  Pilgrims  were  starting 
for  Plymouth,  appears  to  have  been  occupying  his  leisure  hours 
in  writing  a  book  cordially  to  defend  that  infallibility.  I  hold  the 
book — printed  in  1624  —  in  my  hand,  and  I  will  read  from  it  two 
or  three  brief  extracts,  in  order  that  we  may  see  just  how  mild 
iind  liberal  in  theology  John  Robinson  was.  The  book  is  titled 
A  Defence  of  the  Doctrine  2'>ropcninded  by  the  Sunode  at  Dort: 
against  lohn  Mvrton  and  his  Associates,  etc.  Who,  Sir,  was  John 
Murton  ?  John  Murton  was  one  of  the  exceedingly  few  English- 
men of  that  day  who  were  "liberal"  in  theology,  and  was  the 
leader  of  an  Arminian  secession  from  one  of  the  Churches  of  the 
English  exiles  at  Amsterdam.  So  that  in  the  A-ery  act  of  attack- 
ing him,  and  his  company,  Robinson  ranged  himself  on  the  side 
of  the  old  theolosv  against  the  new.     But  hear  what  he  says : 


H 


125 

If  they  say.  further,  that  wicked  men  may  ami  shall  be  saved  if  they 
repent,  they  say  but  as  the  truth  is:  but  if  thereupon  they  conclude  of  all 
simply,  that  therefore  they  may  either  repent,  or  be  saved,  they  erre.  etc. 
[p.  30.] 

And  let  me  here  turn  into  the  very  bowels  of  these  mens  errour.  the 
sword  of  the  Spirit  which  the  Apostle,  in  this  place,  puts  into  mine  hand :  and 
proue  briefly,  but  evidently,  that  Christ  dyed  not  for  all  and  every  person, 
as  is  said;  but  onely  for  them,  and  for  all  them  who  in  the  end  are  saved,  and 
obtain  eternall  life  by  him.  .  .  .  The  Apostle's  meaning  [Kom.  v:  I),  17  etc.) 
therefore  is  not,  that  Christ  died  for  all  particulars  [i.e.:  all  persons  as  partic- 
ular persons],  but  that  all  for  whom  he  dyed,  shall  be  saved  by  him:  which 
seeing  all  are  not ;  it  followeth  that  he  dyed  not  for  all,  as  they  mean.  [pp. 
00,  Gl.] 

So.  in  critically  explaining  the  text  [1  Tim.  ii :  6]  "  Christ  gave 
himself  a  ransom  for  all."  Robinson  says: 

By  "  all"  is  not  meant  all  particulars  [everybody]  in  the  world,  but  all  sorts 
of  people,  as  well  kings  (which  many  Christians,  considering  their  cruell 
hatred  of  Christ,  and  other  enormities,  thought  rather  to  be  prayed  against, 
then  for)  as  others.  The  Apostle  here  informs  them  better,  and  that  Christ 
dyed  ior  all,  and  would  haue  nil.  that  is.  men  of  all  sorts,  saved  —  even  kings 
as  well  as  others.  It  is  not  possible  for  any  Christian  to  pray  for  every  par- 
ticular person  in  the  world  :  nor  lawfull  to  pray  that  God  would  sane  all  in 
generall:  seeing  we  know  by  the  Scriptures,  that  all  shall  not  be  saved,  and 
are  also  forbidden  to  pray  for  some  in  particular,     [p.  62.] 

Infants,  therefore,  bring  sin  properly  into  the  world  with  them.     [p.  1:39.] 

It  would  be  easy.  Gentlemen,  to  quote  scores  of  passages  from 
this  and  from  other  works  of  this  distinguished  and  beloved  man 
which  should  demonstrate  —  were  further  demonstration  needed 
—  that  he  liA*ed  and  died  as  far  from  all  liberalism  in  religion,  as 
the  East  is  from  the  West. 

But,  we  are  asked,  did  not  John  Robinson  utter  those  famous 
words  which  declared  him:  '•  very  confident  the  Lord  had  more 
truth  and  light  yet  to  breake  forth  out  of  his  holy  "Word?  "  And 
did  he  not  exhort  the  company  he  was  sending  away  with  his  bless- 
ing :  "  if  God  should  reveal  any  thing  to  them  by  any  other  instru- 
ment of  his,  to  be  as  ready  to  receive  it  as  ever  the}'  were  to 
receive  any  truth  by  his  Ministery  "  —  and  so  on  ?  Most  assuredly 
he  did.  But  we  cannot  rightly  understand  his  words,  until  we 
consider  what  he  meant  by  this  language,  and  in  reference  to  what 
subject,  in  his  judgment,  new  light  might  fairly  be  expected. 

What  he  had  in  mind  in  speaking  to  his  people,  and  what  they 
had  in  mind  iu  listening  to  him.  was  not  doctriual  truth.     They 


I 


126 

had  found,  or  supposed  they  had  found,  their  final  rest  as  to  that. 
in  Calvinism.  What  he  was  talking  about  was  Church  gocern- 
■f/ient.  The  major  part  of  the  Christian  world  was  well  at  rest, 
and  for  a  long  time  had  been  well  at  rest,  in  regard  tx)  theology ; 
while,  as  to  polity,  then  for  almost  half  a  century  that  portion 
which  they  mainly  knew  had  been  in  a  turmoil  suggestive  of  a 
raging  sea  that  cannot  rest,  whose  waters  cast  up  mire  and  dirt. 
Calvin's  Presbyterianism  ;  Thomas  Cartwright's  Presbyterianism  ; 
the  Presbyterianism  of  Walter  Travers  and  John  Udal ;  Robert 
Browne's  practical  Democracy ;  Henrv  Barrowe's  Presbyterian 
Congregationalism  ;  Francis  Johnson's  High  Church  Barrowism  ; 
Henry  Ainsworth's  Low  Church  Barrowism :  Robinson's  own 
Broad  Church  Barrowism  —  all  these  in  conflict  with  the  Papacy 
on  the  one  side,  and  the  Reformed  and  English  Churches  on  the 
other,  had  perplexed  and  wearied  them.  And.  as  the  Christian 
world  had  not  long  been  studying  that  subject,  the  Leyden  pas- 
tor did  hope  that  some  new  light  might  any  day  flash  forth  from 
some  long  neglected  text,  until  in  its  mellow  illumination  all  these 
doubting  and  divided  brethren  should  see  eye  to  eye. 

But  how  did  so  wide  and  long  a  misapprehension  arise?  Easily, 
and  thus.  The  record  was  first  made  b}'  Edward  Winslow  in  his 
Hypocrisie  Vnmasked^  in  1646  —  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury after  the  event.  The  book  was  an  argument  in  defence 
against  the  slanderous  accusation  of  the  notorious  Samuel  Gorton, 
that  the  Leyden  church  had  been  rigid  and  bitter  Separatists. 
Winslow  denied  this.  Of  his  own  knowledge  he  affirmed  Robin- 
son's liberality.  He  referred  in  proof  of  it  to  that  Divine's 
Apology.  He  insisted  that  the  church,  in  fact,  had  always  held 
communion  with  the  Reformed  Churches.  And  then  he  passed  to 
this  •'  Farewell  Address."  To  refer  what  he  said  of  it  to  theology, 
would  be  to  empty  it  of  all  relevance  to  its  place  and  purpose. 
To  interpret  it  as  referring  to  polity,  makes  it  an  effective  link  in 
its  chain  of  reasoning.  Moreover  he  exalts  as  the  glorious  con- 
summation which  would  follow  the  outbreaking  of  the  desired 
light,  not  any  new  phase  of  doctrinal  concord,  but  [p.  94]  : 
''  How  easie  would  the  differences  be  reconciled  between  the  Pres- 
byterian and  Independent  way  I  "  He  afforded  another  proof 
that  politj'  and  not  doctrine  was  meant,  by  the  further  remark  set 
down  from  Mr.  Robinson's  lips  [p.  98]:  "For,  said  hee,  there 
will  bee  no  difference  between  the  unconformable  [Nonconformist] 
Ministers  and  you,  when  they  come  to  the  practise  of  the  Ordi- 


127 

nances  out  of  the  Kiugdonie  :  "  and  "NVinslow  in  the  close  of  the 
same  paragraph  intimates  that  iiis  purpose  in  what  has  been  said 
is  to  hell)  ••  about  the  settling  of  Church-govennnent  in  the  King- 
dom of  England."  The  excessive  scarcity  of  "NVinslow's  book  — 
of  which  fewer  than  a  dozen  copies  are  known  to  exist,  and  which 
has  never  been  made  accessible  to  the  public  by  any  full  reprint 

—  has  favored  that  popular  misapprehension  which  was  not  un- 
naturalh'  set  ou  foot,  when,  five-and-seventy  years  ago,  our  Uni- 
tarian friends  undertook,  from  the  imperfect  account  given  in 
the  pages  of  Neal,  to  make  the  Pilgrim  pastor  their  apostle  and 
oracle. 

The  learned  Professor  further  traced  this  Robinsonian  "mild- 
ness" down  through  the  "Westminster  Assemblv,  where  he  told 
us  one  part}'  urged  "that  no  fixed  and  immutable  Creed  could 
properly  be  made,"  to  New  England  where  —  if  we  understood 
him  —  he  judged  it  to  have  shown  itself  in  the  quality  of  early 
missionary  instruction  to  the  Indians.  I  have  brought  with  me 
the  means  of  exposing  these  misapprehensions  also ;  b}'  making 
it  clear  from  the  fertile  pages  of  Baillie  [ii.  110,  307,  336]  that 

—  with  the  exception  of  some  few  words  on  Chiliasm  and  the  like  — 
the  debates  which  agitated  the  Assembly  concerned  Pastors,  doc- 
tors, Elders,  and  subjects  of  tlie  detail  of  Church  government, 
and  were  not  about  doctrine  ;  and,  from  Eliot's  The  Day-Breaking^ 
if  not  the  Sun-rising  of  the  Gospell  v:ith  the  Indians  in  Xeic-Eng- 
Innd  (1647),  that  the  Evangelical  message  which  was  here  relied 
upon  to  save  the  savage  soul  was  still  of  the  old-fashioned  sort. 
But  I  must  not  take  time  to  read  more  than  a  single  extract 
describing  the  Indian  Apostle's  second  endeavor  to  pieach  the 
gospel  to  Waauho)i.  and  his  company  [p.  16]  : 

We  set  forth  the  terrour  of  God  against  sinners,  and  mercy  of  God  to  the 
penitent,  and  to  such  as  sought  to  know  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  sinners 
should  bee  after  death  Checliainuppan,  i.e.,  tormented  aHve  —  for  wee  know 
no  other  word  in  the  tongue  to  expresse  extreame  torture  by. 

I  may  conclude,  then,  this  part  of  m^-  argument  with  the  ex- 
pression of  the  profound  conviction  that  the  more  men  really 
know  about  John  Robinson's  books,  labors,  and  character,  the 
more  profound  will  be  their  respect  for  him,  and  the  less  their 
temptation  to  exalt  him  as  the  father  of  modern  liberalism,  or  to 
reason  from  him  to  any  assumed  leuity  iu  any  Creed  of  our  day, 
or  of  his  owu. 


128 

3.  There  is  another  source  of  valuable  testimony  as  to  ichether 
the  founders  of  the  Seminary  u-ere  antecedently  likely  to  agree  upon 
any  creed  tolerant  of  jtrohation  after  death;  and  that  is  the  judg- 
ment on  that  sxihject  of  those  Theologians  ivhose  influence  was  then 
dominant,  and  ivhose  friends  and  disciples  were  foremost  m  the 
ivork. 

Jonathan  Edwards  had  been  dead  just  fifty  j'ears  when  the 
Seminary  was  founded,  but  it  was  a  kind  of  death  which  was 
yet  speaking.  That  intense  moral  earnestness  whicli  exalted  his 
lumbering  style  to  eloquence  ;  that  sweetness  of  Christian  spirit, 
which,  as  apple-blossoms  perfume  the  rugged  tree  ou  whose 
boughs  they  blush,  made  welcome  even  for  his  merciless  logic  to 
appreciative  souls ;  and  that  awe-inspiring  conviction  of  dut}" 
to  a  sovereign  God  which  dominated  his  system  and  himself ; 
together  made  him  —  though  gone  up  on  high  —  a  more  influential 
citizen  of  New  P^nglaud  than  perhaps  any  single  man  who  was 
eating  and  sleeping  in  it  still.  Hours  might  be  spent  in  reading 
from  his  pages  passages  —  some,  like  that  whole  sermon  on  Sin- 
ners in  the  Hands  of  an  Angry  God,  of  lurid  and  fairly  terrific 
power — which  show  that  wherever  his  mind  carried  conviction 
nobody  doubted  that  men's  eternal  state  is  determined  by  the 
things  done  in  this  life.  Near  the  close  of  the  first  volume  of 
his  Works  is  given  a  short  treatise  of  one-and-thirty  pages  "  Con- 
cerning the  Endless  Punishment  of  those  who  die  Impenitent" 
[  Works  i.  612-642],  It  is  largely  devoted  to  a  reply  to  the  ol^iec- 
tions  of  Mr.  Whiston,  in  which  President  Edwards  is  led  to  dis- 
cuss the  unscripturalness  and  unreasonableness  of  probation  — 
or  of  reformation  —  after  death,  from  several  different  points  of 
view.  What  his  feeling  and  opinion  on  the  question  were,  one 
or  two  extracts  will  indicate  \^Works  i.  621]  : 

15  Sect.  Maft.v:  25,  26.  "Agree  with  thine  adversary  quickly,  while 
thou  art  in  the  way  with  him;  lest  at  any  time  the  adversary  deliver  thee  to 
the  judge,  and  the  judge  deliver  thee  to  the  otficer,  and  thou  be  cast  into 
prison.  Verily  I  say  unto  thee,  thou  shalt  not  come  out  thence,  till  thou  hast 
paid  the  uttermost  farthing."  These  words  imply,  that  sinners  are  in  tlie 
way  with  their  adversary,  having  opportunity  to  be  reconciled  to  him  but  for 
a  short  season,  inasmuch  as  it  is  intimated,  that  they  must  agree  with  him 
quickly,  or  they  shall  cease  to  be  in  the  way  with  him,  or  to  have  opportunity 
to  obtain  his  favor  any  more.  But,  if  they  shall  be  continued  in  a  state  of  pro- 
bation after  death  to  the  end  of  the  world,  and  after  that  for  (as  it  were) 
endless  ages ;  how  far,  how  very  far,  are  these  words  of  Christ  from  repre- 
senting the  matter  as  it  is ! 


129 

And  so  again  [  Works  i.  GIG]  he  says  : 

If  any  of  the  separate  souls  of  the  wicked,  that  are  in  the  case  that  the 
soul  of  the  rich  man  was  in,  when  he  died  and  lift  up  his  eyes  in  hell  being 
in  torments,  should  repent  and  be  delivered  before  the  day  of  judgment,  and 
so  shoidd  appear  at  the  right  hand  among  the  righteous  at  that  ilay,  then 
how  could  that  be  verified,  2  Cor.  v:  10,  "  For  we  must  all  stand  before  the 
judgment-seat  of  Christ,  that  every  one  may  receive  the  things  done  in  his 
body,  whether  good  or  bad  ''?  And  we  have  reason  to  think  that  the  time 
of  standing  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ,  which  the  apostle  has  a  spe- 
cial respect  to,  is  the  day  of  judgment,  if  we  compare  this  with  other  Scrip- 
tures; as  that  of  the  same  apostle,  Act-'i  xvli:  31.  "He  hath  appointed  a 
day  in  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness,  by  that  man  whom  he 
hath  ordained."     And  many  other  places. 

The  j-ouuger  Edwards  had  been  dead  only  between  six  and  seven 
years  when  the  Creed  was  shaped  at  Andover.  For  his  own  sake, 
as  well  as  for  his  illustrious  father's  sake,  he  had  been  very  dear 
to  the  New  England  churches.  He  had  been  the  theological  in- 
structor of  two  of  the  most  eminent  of  the  men  who  had  to  do  with 
the  early  days  of  Andover,  Dr.  Dwight,  and  Dr.  Griffin.  And  this 
is  the  view  he  took  of  probation  after  death.     [  Works  ii.  444]  : 

How  can  the  idea  .  .  .  consist  with  the  various  declarations  of  the  Scriji- 
ture  that  those  who  die  in  sin  are  "  lost,"  "  perishing,*'  suffer  "  perdition,*' 
are  "cast  away,"  "are  burnt  up,"  etc.?  .  ,  .  They  are  no  more  lost,  than 
while  they  are  under  the  discipline  of  providence,  in  this  world.  Xay,  they 
are  with  respect  to  their  true  interest  in  no  worse  situation  than  they  are  in 
this  world,  but  in  a  vastly  better,  as  they  will  be  under  means  of  grace  vastly 
more  conducive  to  their  highest  happiness  and  salvation,  thau  what  they 
enjoy  here. 

Dr.  .Joseph  Bellamy  had  been  dead  eighteen  years.  He  had 
been  a  Theological  Seminary  in  himself,  and  in  those  days  of  private 
and  pastoral  instruction  is  judged  —  with  a  single  exception  —  to 
have  trained  more  ministers  than  any  other  New  England  Divine. 
'He  began  his  famous  True  Religion  Delineated  with  these  three 
sentences.     [  Works  i.  7]  : 

We  are  designed  by  God  our  Maker,  for  an  endless  existence.  In  this 
present  life  we  just  enter  upon  being,  and  are  in  a  state  introductory  to  a 
never-ending  duration  in  another  world,  where  we  are  to  be  forever  un- 
speakably happy  or  miserable,  according  to  our  present  conduct.  This,  is 
designed  for  a  state  of  probation,  and  that  for  a  state  of  rewards  and  pun- 
ishments. 


130 

Dr.  Nathanael  Emmons  was  then  in  the  five-and-thirtieth  year 
of  his  mighty  ministry  at  Franklin  —  where,  going  beyond  Dr. 
Bellamy,  he  had  himself  theologically  educated  as  many  as  one 
hundred  young  men.  The  first  intent  in  regard  to  the  new  sem- 
inary which  afterward  was  planned  to  be  at  Newburyport,  was 
that  it  should  be  built  up  under  his  eye,  and  care,  at  Franklin. 
He  was  perpetually  consulted  as  to  all  the  details  of  the  institu- 
tion as  they  were  gradually  developed ;  and  it  is  stated  in  his 
Memoir  [Works  i.  208]  that  before  "its  carefully  written  Creed 
was  adopted,  every  word  of  it  was  placed,  again  and  again,  before 
his  keen  eye." 

Now,  in  his  Sermon  on  TJie  Death  of  Sinners  not  pleasing  to 
God,  Dr.  Emmons  [  Works  vi.  299]  tersely  said : 

Eternal  death  is  peculiar  to  the  finally  impenitent.  .  .  As  soon  as  they 
leave  this  world,  they  will  go  into  a  state  of  everlasting  separation  and 
alienation  from  God,  where  he  will  pour  out  the  vials  of  his  wrath  upon 
them,  without  mixture  and  without  end. 

Dr.  John  Smalley  was  in  the  fiftieth  year  of  his  pastorate  at 
New  Britain,  Conn.,  and  was  recognized  as  a  distinguished  speci- 
men of  "the  sober,  staid,  reasoning,  and  conservative  class  of  Di- 
vines" [Sj^rague,  i.  565]  yet  we  find  such  passages  as  these  in  his 
published  discourses  [Sermons,  p.  72]  :  "  repent  in  this  only  space 
for  repentance  ;  "  [Ibid., p.  415]  :  "all  sinners  must  repent  .  .  . 
in  this  space  of  repentance,  or  their  sins  will  never  be  blotted 
out." 

Dr.  Moses  Hemmenway,  who  had  been  at  Harvard  a  classmate 
and  intimate  of  the  elder  President  Adams, — a  man  of  distin- 
guished ability  and  great  learning  —  and  who  was  in  his  forty- 
ninth  year  of  service  at  Wells,  Me.,  in  a  Sermon  on  Means  of 
Grace  to  he  attended  before  Faith,  [Seven  Sermons,  161]  thus 
declared  his  views  : 

Sinners  are  on  probation  for  eternal  life,  imdera  constitution  of  grace.  .  . 
A  reprieve  is  granted  to  them,  that  they  may  be  treated  with,  and  called  to 
repentance,  upon  the  foundation  of  a  Covenant  of  grace.  It  is  true,  while 
they  are  imbelievers  and  impenitent,  the  condemning  sentence  of  the  law 
stands  in  force  against  them;  and  will  be  executed  upon  all  who  are  not 
when  they  die  united  to  Christ,  and  so  interested  in  the  saving  benefits  He 
has  purchased,  according  to  the  new  and  gracious  covenant. 

Dr.  Joseph  Lathrop  was  in  the  fifty-second  year  of  his  labors 
at  Springfield,  Mass.     He  was  reputed  to  hold  a  middle  ground 


131 

between  the  Arminians  and  the  High  Calvinists,  so  that  ho  could 
not  be  suspected  of  being  over-rigid  in  his  tenets ;  yet  thus  he 
spake  [^Sermons  i.  150,  152]  on  the  point  liefore  us : 

The  grace  of  the  Redeemer  brought  liim  down  from  heaven  to  die  for 
guilty  mortals.  He  has  suft'ered,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he  might 
bring  us  to  God.  He  now  offers  them  his  salvation  with  affectionate  tender- 
ness, and  urges  their  acceptance  of  it  with  an  importunity  that  would  take 
no  denial.  But  when  the  day  of  their  probation  shall  expire,  the  overtures  of 
his  love  will  cease.  ...  In  the  present  world,  many  prajers  are  made,  and 
many  means  are  used,  for  the  recovery  of  sinners;  and  blessings  are  often 
granted  them  in  consequence  of  the  fervent  petitions,  and  kind  offices  of 
their  pious  friends.  But  in  the  future  world,  they  will  enjoy  such  advantages 
no  more. 

Take  —  by  way  of  contrast —  a  yovng  man.  who  had  graduated 
at  Middlebury  only  two  years  before,  Rev.  Caleb  Burge,  and  we 
find  him  before  long  printing  a  treatise  on  the  Atonement,  which 
elicited  remarkaV)le  commendations  from  the  ablest  thinkers  of 
the  time,  to  which  he  added  an  Appendix  of  fifteen  or  twenty 
pages  mainly  devoted  to  the  proof  that  spiritual  reformation  after 
death  is  most  unreasonable,  and  which  he  thus  concludes  [Essay 
on  the  Atonement  (ed.  1859),  p.  545]  : 

And  now,  reader,  let  me  tell  you  that  Jesus  Christ  is  your  Saviour;  but 
if  you  do  not  believe  in  Him,  and  make  application  to  Him  for  pardon,  you 
must  die  in  your  sins,  and  perish  forever. 

Edward  Payson  was  within  nineteen  years  of  the  end  of  his 
remarkable  career  at  Portland  when  the  Seminary  was  founded, 
and.  on  this  subject,  we  find  him  —  the  gentle,  the  saintly,  the 
practical  —  in  a  discourse  on  -'The  End  of  Time"  [Works  ii. 
593]  faithfully  saying : 

The  moment  in  which  we  leave  this  temporary  and  mutable  state,  we 
shall  enter  a  state  which  is  eternal,  and,  of  course,  unchangeable.  Sound 
philosophy  unites  with  Revelation  in  declarinn  that  no  essential  change  can 
take  place  in  eternity.  The  moment  in  which  we  leave  the  body  and  enter 
the  future  world,  eternity  will  set  its  stamp  upon  us,  exclaiming,  "Such  as  I 
find  you,  you  shall  continue  to  be  while  I  endure."  '•  He  that  is  righteous 
let  him  be  righteous  still,  and  he  that  is  sinful,  let  him  be  sinful  still." 

But  our  survey  of  those  elements  which  should  fairly  first  be 
considered  in  putting  its  true  sense  upon  the  Andover  Creed  as  a 
whole,  would  be  far  from  complete  did  we  omit  the  judgment  of 
that  great  man,  the  grass  upon  whose  grave  by  tlie  side  of  his 


meetiug-house  in  Newport  had  hardly  yet  liad  time  to  get  green 
and  thick.  Dr.  Samuel  Hopkins  ;  whose  attitude  acquires  some 
special  determinative  force  from  the  two  considerations  :  that  one 
of  the  coalescing  parties  whose  long-delayed  harmony  at  last  con- 
structed and  consented  to  the  Creed,  was  called  by  his  name ; 
and  that  it  was  commonly  reported  fifty  years  ago,  or  more,  that 
"William  Bartlet,  the  largest  donor  among  the  Founders,  had  given 
to  all  the  judgments  of  this  Divine  in  theology  that  very  solid 
proof  of  concurrence  and  commendation  which  was  involved  in 
publishing  the  Doctor's  (somewhat  ponderous)  System  of  Divinity^ 
at  his  own  expense. 

In  that  System,  thus  published,  we  find  the  following  dense 
argument.     \_Works  ii.  38,  39,  44]  : 

The  only  time  of  probation  allotted  to  man  is  that  of  this  life,  to  which 
the  death  of  the  body  puts  an  end:  so  that  every  one  will  be  happy  or  miser- 
able in  the  future,  endless  state,  according  to  his  character,  which  is  formed 
before  the  soul  is  separated  from  the  body.  This  is  plain  and  certain  from 
the  Scripture,  where  there  is  not  a  word,  or  the  least  hint,  of  another  state 
of  trial,  after  the  death  of  the  body,  but  much  is  there  said  to  the  contrary 
of  this.  This  life  is  represented  as  the  sowing,  or  seed  time,  and  that  men 
shall  reap  in  a  future  state  according  to  what  they  do  in  this  life.  '•  Be  not 
deceived;  God  is  not  mocked:  for  whatsoever  a  man  soweth,  that  shall  he 
also  reap.  For  he  that  soweth  to  his  flesh,  shall  of  the  flesh  reap  corrup- 
tion; but  he  that  soweth  to  the  spirit,  shall  'of  the  spirit  reap  life  everlast- 
ing" [Gal.  vi:  7,  8].  This  life  is  represented  as  the  only  time  to  lay  up  a 
treasure  in  heaven,  —  to  make  to  ourselves  friends,  so  as  to  be  received  into 
everlasting  habitations,  when  we  fail  here,  when  this  life  ends;  —  to  make 
our  peace  with  God,  which  Christ  represents  and  urges,  by  agreeing  with 
our  adversary  while  we  are  in  the  way  with  him,  otherwise  we  shall  be  cast 
into  prison,  from  whence  there  is  no  deliverance.  And  he  represents  Laz- 
arus and  the  rich  man  as  fixed,  —  the  former  in  a  state  of  happiness,  and 
the  latter  in  a  state  of  misery — immediately  upon  their  f/oinrj  out  of  this 
xoorld.  And  it  is  said,  "It  is  appointed  to  men  once  to  die,  but  after  this 
the  judgment"  [Heb.  ix:  27].  And  if  nothing  were  said,  relating  to  this 
point,  but  the  following  words,  it  is  fixed  in  them  beyond  a  doubt:  "We 
must  all  appear  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ,  that  every  one  may  re- 
ceive the  thinf/s  done  in  his  body,  according  to  that  he  hath  done,  whether 
it  be  good  or  bad"'  [2  Cor.  v:  10].  If,  at  the  final  judgment,  when  the 
endless  state  of  men  will  be  fixed,  they  shall  be  judged  according  to  what 
they  have  done  in  the  body,  then  this  life  is  the  only  time  of  probation, 
and  in  the  body  they  fix  their  character  and  state  for  eternity.  .  .  .  Death 
is  justly  terrible,  and  a  dreadful  evil,  to  those  who  are  in  their  sins.  It  de- 
prives them  of  all  good;  it  puts  an  end  to  their  probation  state,  and  to  all 
hope,  and  fixes  them  in  a  state  of  sin,  despair,  and  endless  misery.  This  is 
necessarily  implied  in  the  words  just  cited:  "The  sting  of  death  is  sin; 
and  the  strength  of  sin  is  the  law."     Death  could  have  no  sting,  by  sin  or 


133 

the  law,  more  than  any  other  change  or  event  in  life,  if  it  did  not  fix  the 
curse  of  the  law  upon  tlie  sinner,  when  he  dies,  and  put  an  end  to  his  pro- 
bation and  hope.  The  sting  of  death  is  the  evil  which  sin  deserves,  and 
which  the  law  denounces,  whicli  is  the  second  death.  The  death  of  the 
body  fixes  this  sting  in  the  sinner's  heart,  which  is  endless  destruction.  .  .  . 
The  spirits  of  those  who  die  in  their  sins  pass  into  a  state  of  darkness, 
despair  and  tormenting  wickedness:  and  all  hope,  comfort  and  enjoyment 
being  taken  from  them,  they  must  be  totally  lost,  and  overwhelmed  in  misery; 
yet  looking  forward  to  a  resurrection  ami  judgment  to  come  with  aversion 
anil  dread,  as  involving  a  great  increase  of  their  sufferings,  which  can  have 
no  end.  These  are  the  spirits  in  pr/.son,  of  which  the  Apostle  Peter  speaks, 
who  are  reserved  to  the  general  judgment,  when  each  one  shall  receive 
according  to  what  he  has  done  in  the  body. 

With  their  great  teachers  uniformly  teaching  thus,  can  the  sup- 
position be  reasonabl}'  entertained  for  a  moment,  that  in  an  insti- 
tution founded  to  perpetuate  that  teaching,  a  doctrine  in  flat  and 
fatal  opposition  to  the  same  could  receive  legitimate  endorsement? 

4.  Such  being  the  probabilities  as  to  the  shape  which  the  Anclover 
Creed  looiiM  take  in  regard  to  the  dogma  of  probation  after  death, 
groicing  out  of  the  tone  of  the  Church  in  all  time  previous,  as  ex- 
pressed by  its  jiyofound  th inkers,  and  in  its  great  Creeds,  and  sug- 
gested by  the  temper  and  teaching  of  those  chief  Congregationalists 
of  the  time  tvhose  influence  loas  saturating  the  Churches  of  New 
England  like  an  atmosphere ;  still  more  important  testimony  in  the 
same  direction  may  be  gained  from  the  consideration  of  the  recorded 
faith  and  historic  purposes  of  the  individuals  who  gave  their  money, 
2)i'ayers,  time,  strength,  and  enthusiasin  to  establish  the  Institution, 
and  of  those  loho  loere  first  made  Teachers  in  it,  and  Visitors  over  it. 

There  was,  on  the  one  side,  the  Phillips  Academy,  which  had 
been  founded  at  Andover  in  1778  by  the  Hons.  Samuel  and  John 
Phillips,  with  paramount  puipose  to  make  it  train  Christian  men, 
and,  if  possible,  ministers ;  which  —  with  the  help  of  the  excel- 
lent, if  not  eminent  village  pastor.  Rev.  Jonathan  French,  who 
was  an  old-fashioned  Calvinist  as  distinguished  from  the  then 
new-fashioned  Hopkinsians  —  had  already  trained  a  good  man}- ; 
and  around  which,  the  election  of  Henry  Ware  as  Hollis  professor 
at  Harvard,  had  the  effect  to  centre  the  thought  and  interest  of 
Samuel  Abbot,  and  Eliphalet  Pearson,  and  a  second  John  Phillips, 
and  Mark  Newman,  and  Samuel  Farrar,  and  Jedidiah  Morse  ;  all 
increasingly  persuaded  that  the  thing  which  the  cause  of  Christ 
required  more  than  all  else  iji  New  England  then,  was,  that  upon 
the   germ    and    nucleus   of   that  Academy-,   already  controllingly 


134 

Christian  in  its  intent,  should  be  built  up  a  Theological  Seminary. 
Now,  what  evidence  have  we  as  to  the  way  in  which  these  gentle- 
men were  likely  to  stand  affected  toward  the  idea  of  probation 
after  death  ? 

We  have  first  the  very  extraordinary  and  significant  fact  that 
after  the  funeral  of  the  chief  original  founder,  the  Hon.  Lieut.- 
Gov.  Samuel  Phillips,  the  trustees  of  the  Academy  —  being  to- 
gether at  his  late  residence  —  were  informed  [see  Records  Gov. 
Phil's  Donations']  that,  by  will: 

For  the  preservation  of  the  essential  and  distinguishing  doctrines  of  the 
gospel  as  professed  by  our  pious  ancestors,  the  first  settlers  of  New  England, 
and  to  guard  against  the  dissemination  of  the  least  particle  of  infidelity  or 
modern  philosophy,  and  also  against  the  dispersion  of  such  theological  trea- 
tises, or  speculations,  as  tend  to  undermine  the  fundamental  principles  of 
the  gospel  plan  of  salvation, 

they  are  asked  to  accept  from  him  a  legacy,  in  trust,  to  be  appro- 
priated to  the  circulation,  in  the  Institution  and  in  the  vicinage, 
to  preserve  Orthodoxy,  if  possible,  ''in  all  future  time,"  of  certain 
volumes:  —  first  the  Bible,  next  the  "Westminster  Assembly's 
Shorter  Catechism.  Now,  we  pretty  well  know  what  the  deceased. 
Lieut. -Governor  thought  of  the  bearing  of  those  two  books  upon 
the  question  before  us.  What  next?  Dr.  Watts.  Let  me  refresh 
your  recollection  how  Dr.  Watts  stood  on  this  subject.  Take  his 
2d  Hymn,  2d  Book  [  Works,  iv.  200]  : 

My  thoughts  on  awful  subjects  roll, 

Damnation  and  the  dead; 
What  horrors  seize  the  guilty  soul 

Upon  a  dying  bed. 

Ling'ring  about  these  mortal  shores 

She  makes  a  long  delay, 
Till,  like  a  flood  with  rapid  force, 

Death  sweeps  the  wretch  away. 

Then  swift  and  dreadful  she  descends 

Down  to  the  fiery  coast, 
Amongst  abominable  fiends 

Herself  a  frightful  ghost. 

There  endless  crowds  of  sinners  lie. 

And  darkness  makes  their  chains; 
Tortur'd  with  keen  despgir  they  cry, 

Yet  wait  for  fiercer  pains. 


135 

Not  all  their  anguish  and  their  blood 

For  their  oUi  guilt  atones, 
Nor  the  compassion  of  a  God 

Shall  hearken  to  their  grones. 

And  that  such  was  not  his  professional  Psalm-Book  st3'le  alone, 
this,  from  his  miscellaneous  muse  [*'  The  Atheist's  3fistaJce," 
Wbrks^  iv.  345]  bears  witness : 

The  gasp  of  your  expiring  breath 

Consigns  your  souls  to  chains  — 
By  the  last  agonies  of  death 

Sent  down  to  fiercer  pains. 

Chief  among  other  volumes  with  which  this  good  man  desired  to 
impregnate  this  school  within  and  without  in  its  earliest  years,  to 
the  end  that  it  should  stay  impregnated  '•  in  all  future  time,"  was 
Dr.  Doddridge's  Rise  and  Progress  of  Religion  in  the  Soul.  Let 
me  remind  you  how  that  volume  insists  that  death  closes  probation 
[  Works  i.  300]  —  as  thus  : 

When  surviving  friends  are  tenderly  mourning  over  the  breathless  corpse, 
and  taking  a  fond  farewell  of  it  before  it  is  laid  to  consume  away  in  the  dark 
and  silent  grave,  into  what  hands,  O  sinner,  will  thy  sold  be  fallen  I  What 
scenes  will  open  upon  thy  separate  spirit,  even  before  thy  deserted  flesh  be 
cold,  or  thy  sightless  eyes  are  closed  ?  It  shall  then  know,  what  it  is  to 
return  to  God  to  be  rejected  by  him,  as  having  rejected  his  gospel  and  his 
Son,  and  despised  the  only  treaty  of  reconciliation;  and  that  such  a  one,  so 
amazingly  condescending  and  gracious.  Thou  shalt  know  what  it  is  to  be 
disowned  by  Christ,  whom  that  hast  refused  to  entertain;  and  what  it  is,  as 
the  certain  and  immediate  consequence  of  that  to  be  left  in  the  hands  of  the 
malignant  spirits  of  hell.  There  will  be  no  more  friendship  then:  None  to 
comfort,  none  to  alleviate  thy  agony  and  distress:  But.  on  the  contrary,  all 
aroimd  thee  labouring  to  aggravate  and  increase  them.  Thou  shalt  pass  away 
the  intermediate  years  of  the  separate  state,  in  dreadfid  expectation,  and 
bitter  outcries  of  horror  and  remorse.  And  then  thou  shalt  hear  the  trum- 
pet of  the  arch-angel,  in  whatever  cavern  of  that  gloomy  world  thou  art 
lodged.  .  .  .  Thou  must  come  forth  and  be  reunited  to  a  body,  now  formed 
forever  to  endure  agonies,  which  in  this  mortal  state  would  have  dissolved  it 
in  a  moment.  .  .  .  There  shall  I  hear  thy  cries  among  the  rest,  rending  the 
very  heavens  in  vain. 

The  recorded  fact  that  the  trustees  "  cheerfully  accepted  "  this, 
which  they,  at  the  same  time,  called  "  a  sacred  and  important 
trust,"  is  evidence  enough  that  on  the  side  of  the  house  which 
they  represented,  there  was  no  retrocession  from  the  Westminster 
doctrines  in  Eschatology,  and  no  desire  to  s.hriuk  from  their  plain- 


136 

est  aud  fullest  utterance  —  a  fact  which  it  is  useless  to  take  time 
to  prove  by  special  citations  from  the  writings  of  individual  men ; 
but  which  the  files  of  the  Panoplist,  which  [Life  of  J.  Morse,  p.  71] 
from  1805  to  1808  was  under  the  sole  control,  as  editor  and  pub- 
lisher, of  Dr.  Morse,  both  through  his  own  articles  aud  those  of 
contributors,  abundantly  demonstrate. 

Turning  from  the  Old  Calvinists  to  the  Hopkiusian  side  of  the 
house,  it  hardly  needs  —  after  the  full  expression  which  I  have 
given  to  Dr.  Hopkins's  own  views,  that  much  be  said  in  exposition 
of  theirs.  I  will  refer  only  to  Dr.  Samuel  Spring,  who  was  in  his 
thirty-first  year  at  Newburyport,  aud  who  was  the  leading  mind 
among  the  company  —  including  prominently  besides  himself, 
William  Bartlet,  who  had  paid  the  expense  of  publishing  Dr.  Hop- 
kins's System,  Moses  Brown,  John  Xorris,  and  Leonard  Woods  first 
Abbot  professor,  — which,  early  in  1807,  undertook  to  establish  in 
Newburyport  that  Hopkiusian  Theological  School,  which,  as  the 
result  of  well-nigh  interminable  diplomacy,  was  at  last  brought 
to  Andover,  and  united  with  that  there  inchoate,  to  make  by  a 
compromise  the  Institution  which  through  a  kind  of  pious  fungous 
growth  became  attached  to  the  original  foundation  of  Phillips 
Academy. 

In  an  Ordination  Sermon  [Sennon  at  Orel,  of  Mr.  Bell,  P-  -7] 
Dr.  Spring  said  : 

Thus  the  good  man  and  the  bad,  make  the  journey  of  Ufe  upon  diametri- 
cally opposed  principles.  At  times  they  seem  to  travel  in  company  aud 
mutually  aim  at  the  same  end.  They  live  together  in  the  same  family. 
They  walk  together  hand  in  hand  to  the  same  house  of  worship.  They  are 
ofteia  members  of  the  same  visible  Church.  But  while  death  raises  one  to 
the  mansions  of  endless  love  and  increasing  delight,  it  sinks  the  other  into 
the  furnace  of  God's  nnendinr/  and  increasin'j  n-rath. 

Dr.  Samuel  Worcester  —  one  of  the  closest  friends  of  the  In- 
stitution, who  took  Dr.  Spring's  place  as  a  Visitor  in  1810.  had 
then  recently  published  a  small  volume  \_Six  Sermons  on  the  Doc- 
trine of  Future  Punishment]  in  whicli  [p.  70]  he  says: 

The  door  of  mercy  is  shut  against  individual  sinners  when  they  die.  For, 
as  it  was  formerly  shown,  those  who  die  in  their  sins  ara  reserved  in  prison 
unto  the  day  of  judgment  to  be  punished. 

Dr.  Woods  was  the  first  Abbot  professor  of  Theology.  And 
this  is  the  manner  in  which  he  afterward  expressed  the  views  of 


137 

his  life  in  reply  to  John  Foster's  ingenious  and  tender-hearted 
speculations  [  TrorAs,  iii.  287]  : 

If  it  wore  the  design  of  a  merciful  God  to  turn  all  the  wicked  from  their 
wicked  ways  aud  to  make  them  heirs  of  his  kingilom  at  some  future  time, 
it  would  be  natural  for  us  to  think  that  he  would  inform  us  of  so  important 
and  so  pleasing  an  event.  But  he  has  given  us  no  such  information.  We 
look  in  vain  for  any  proof  that  God  will  bring  sinners  to  repentance  and 
carry  on  the  work  of  sanctification  in  the  world  of  perdition,  or  that  there 
will  be  any  dispensation  of  grace  after  the  present  life,  which  is  the  accepted 
time,  the  day  of  salvation.  In  all  the  accounts  we  have  of  the  wicked  in  the 
future  state,  not  a  single  instance  of  repentance  is  mentioned,  and  not  a 
single  intimation  that  any  such  instance  will  ever  take  place.  On  the  con- 
trary, we  are  clearly  taught,  that  the  state  of  the  wicked  after  death,  and 
the  judgment  day,  will  be  unchangeably  tixed. 

Dr.  Edward  Dorr  Griffin  was  the  first  Bartlet  professor  of 
Sacred  Rhetoiic.  Those  who  have  read  his  famous  "  Park  St. 
Lectures,"  know  what  his  views  were  —  often  presented  with 
appalling  eloquence.  But  I  find  the  following  in  a  discourse  of 
his  **  On  the  Uncertainty  of  Human  Life  "  iSermons.  p.  8]  : 

By  the  spirits  of  our  departed  friends,  by  the  joys  of  those  that  sleep  in 
Jesus,  and  the  pains  of  those  who  have  no  God,  I  adjure  you  to  consider 
that  when  you  have  once  plunged  into  eternity,  there  is  no  coming  l)ack  to 
make  a  second  trial.  If  you  have  rushed  into  the  presence  of  God  with  sins 
unlamented  and  guilt  unpurged,  all  is  gone,  eternally  gone,  without  recovery 
or  redress. 

Dr.  Eliphalet  Pearson  was  the  first  Professor  of  Sacred  Litera- 
ture. In  his  Public  Lecture  on  the  Death  of  Pres.  Willard  of 
Harvard  CoUer/e  [pp.  17,  18]  he  said: 

Of  all  beings  in  our  world  man  alone  is  capable  of  religion,  or  of  know- 
ing, obeying,  loving  and  forever  enjoying  his  Creator.  He  is  also  destined 
to  exist  in  two  different  states;  the  first  a  state  of  probation;  the  second  of 
retribution.  The  former  momentary;  the  latter  eternal.  That  man  is  thus 
formed,  and  thus  destinetl,  every  person  in  a  Christian  land  must  acknowl- 
edge, whose  conscience  is  not  seared,  as  with  a  hot  iron.  What  madness 
must  it  then  be,  to  delay  preparation  for  eternity!  ...  It  must  never  'oe 
forgotten  that  this  eternal  weight  of  glory  depends  upon  the  moral  charac- 
ter established  in  the  present  state. 

It  surelj'  looks  ver}-  much  as  if  all  who  —  whether  as  founders, 
or  framers  —  had  anj'  thing  to  do  with  the  primordia  rerum  here, 
were  of  one  way  of  thinking  as  to  this  —  aud  that  the  old- 
fashioned  way. 


138 

Id  a  matter  of  so  great  moment  we  can  hardly  be  too  careful 
however  to  look  well  to  our  evidence  —  and  so  I  introduce  another 
most  important  witness  here,  Dr.  Timothy  D wight,  then  President 
of  Yale  College,  and  who  wasone  of  the  Visitors  originally  selected, 
and,  in  1808,  by  statute  associated  with  Dr.  Samuel  Spring  and 
the  Honorable  George  Bliss,  and  Messrs.  Abbot,  Bartlet,  and 
Brown  of  the  Founders,  as  the  Controlling  Board  of  the  Institu- 
tion. He  preached  the  sermon,  on  Wednesday,  28  September, 
1808,  when  the  Seminary  was  formally  established,  its  Professors 
inaugurated,  and  the  new  School  of  Theology  declared  to  be  open 
for  the  admission  of  students.  He  had  been  in  correspondence 
with  the  Founders  from  the  very  first,  and  he  is  known  to  have 
possessed  their  confidence  in  a  marked  degree.  It  is  perfectly 
safe,  therefore,  to  take  him  as  interpreting  them  upon  the  question 
before  us. 

The  CLXIIId  Sermon  of  his  Theology;  Explained  and  Defended 
in  a  Series  of  Sermons,  etc.  [ed.  1819,  v:  407-424],  is  upon 
"  Death,"  and  one  head  of  that  Discourse  [p.  415]  is  as  follows, 
viz. : 

IV.     Death  terminates  the  Probation  of  Man. 

That  Death  ends  our  Probation,  so  far  as  this  world  is  concerned,  I  shall 
not  be  expected  to  prove.  That  there  is  no  Probation  beyond  the  grave,  is 
evident  from  the  fact,  that  such  a  state  is  never  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures. 
Every  thing,  which  is  said  in  them  concerning  futurity,  exhibits  it  only  as 
a  state  of  reward.^  To  this  object  they  conduct  us;  and  then  close  their 
communications. 

But  this  is  not  all,  nor  even  the  chief  proof  of  the  Doctrine.  In  Eccl. 
ix:  10,  we  are  informed,  that  there  is  no  work,  device,  knoicledye,  nor  wis- 
dom, in  the  world  of  departed  spirits  ichither  we  cjo."^  The  work,  here  men- 
tioned, is  plainly  the  work  of  salvation;  and  this,  it  is  declared,  cannot  be 
done.  Hence  Solomon  exhorts  us  to  do  this  work  loith  our  miyht,  while  we 
are  in  the  present  world. 

In  Acts  iii:  21,  St.  Peter  says  concerning  Christ,  Whom  the  Heaven  must 
receive,  until  the  times  of  the  restitution  of  all  things.  But  Christ,  we  are 
elsewhere  informed,  will  come  a  second  time  to  Judgment.  At  this  time 
then  all  things  will  be  restored,  which  will  ever  be  restored.  The  present 
Heavens  and  Earth  will  then  pass  away,  and  be  succeeded  by  new  Heavens 
and  a  new  Earth,  in  which  riyhteousness  will  dwell  forever.     But  we  are 

'  It  will  be  remembered  by  those  who  are  familiar  with  Dr.  Dwight's  writinga  that  he 

often  —  as  here,  and  again  in  a  passage  to  be  quoted  further  on  —  uses  this  word  as  applying 

to  evil  consequences  as  truly  as  to  good  ones,  as  did  the  old  writers,  e.g.,  Spenser  [Fuerie 

Queene,  iii.  c.  12]  : 

Yet  not  escaped  from  the  due  reward 

Of  his  had  deedes. 
*  These  italics  are  all  Dr.  Dwight's  own. 


139 

abundantly  assured,  that,  at  this  period,  the  everlasting  rewards  of  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked  will  commence.  There  will,  therefore,  be  no 
future  Probation. 

In  John  ix:  4,  our  Savioiu"  says,  The  night  cometh,  in  lohich  no  man  can 
work :  that  is,  the  season,  of  which  Death  is  the  beginning,  and  Eternity  the 
continuance.  All  the  probationary  work  of  man,  therefore,  is  ended  when 
Death  arrives;  and  will  never  be  resumed. 

That  Dr.  Dwight  rightly  apprehended,  and  in  no  manner  shrunk 
from,  the  legitimate  consequences  of  the  doctrine  thus  held,  be- 
comes obvious  from  his  application  of  the  subject,  e.g.,  [76/d., 
p.  421] : 

As  this  life  is  the  only  time  of  probation  to  man;  the  present  is  the  only 
period,  in  which  this  mighty  evil  [of  eternal  death]  can  be  prevented.  Seize, 
therefore,  this  golden  season;  and,  while  it  lasts.  Work  out  your  saltation 
with  fear  and  trembling.  Think  what  it  will  be  to  die  forever.  Remember 
how  short  life  is;  how  uncertain;  by  how  frail  a  tenure  possessed;  and  how 
apt  to  vanish  before  we  are  aware.  Feel,  that  in  this  short  period,  if  ever, 
your  salvation  is  to  be  secured. 

So,  in  the  sermon  following,  on  The  Immediate  Consequences  of 
Death  \_Ibicl.,  pp.  431,  432],  Dr.  Dwight  sa3-s : 

The  Soul,  after  Death,  returns  immediatehj  to  God,  to  give  an  account  of 
its  conduct  in  the  present  life.  This  appears  to  be  the  plain  language  of  the 
text  [Eccl.  xii:  7],  in  which  the  return  of  the  body  to  the  dust,  and  of  the 
soul  to  God,  are  exhibited  as  coexisting  events.  ...  Its  secret  chambers 
and  all  which  they  contain,  or  have  ever  contained,  Avill  be  laid  open  to  its 
own  eye,  as  well  as  to  that  of  its  Maker.  In  this  manner,  the  motives  by 
which  it  has  been  governed,  and  the  moral  character  which  it  has  sustained, 
during  its  probation,  will  be  so  entirely  developed,  as  to  satisfy  even  itself, 
that  the  investigation  has  been  just,  as  well  as  complete. 

And  then,  in  the  application  of  this  discourse  [76iVZ.,  pp.  439, 
440] .  he  adds  : 

We  know  that  we  must  die:  we  know  that  death  will  terminate  our  pro- 
bation: and  are  assured  that  it  will  introduce  us  to  the  Judgment.  Wisdom 
therefore  demands,  common  sense  demands,  that  we  should  make  effectual 
preparation  for  death,  by  preparing  ourselves  for  the  Judgment.  .  .  .  Let 
me  solemnly  ask  this  assembly.  Are  you  prepared  for  this  awful  event  ?  Is 
your  account  ready  ? 

Here,  now,  we  have  an  original  Visitor,  chosen  b}'  and  asso- 
ciated with  the  Founders  themselves,  and  one  with  whom  we  have 
reason  to  know  they  were  especially  well  pleased.  cotemp(Mane- 
ously  declaring  in  the  most  distinct,  solemn,  and  emphatic  manner 


140 

his  belief  :  (1)  that  probation  ends  with  this  life;  (2)  that  there 
can  be  no  probation  beyond  this  life  ;  (3)  that  immediately  at  death 
all  souls  return  to  God,  to  give  their  account,  and  receive  the  re- 
ward of  the  good  or  bad  use  which  they  have  made  of  their  pro- 
bation here.  Is  it  conceivable  that,  in  this,  he  did  not  fairly 
represent  the  Founders'  views  —  views  unalterably  identified  with 
the  Seminary,  and  from  which  no  departure  can  lawfully  be  made 
by  any  Professor? 

I  may  spend  a  moment  here  to  put  in  —  although  out  of  place 
in  point  of  time — the  fit  testimony  of  another  distinguished  member 
of  the  same  family ;  —  a  family  somewhat  largely  represented 
on  the  other  side  in  this  hearing ;  the  witness  of  one  of  a  siugu- 
larl}'  serene  and  beautiful  presence,  a  strong  and  noble  and  dig- 
nified man,  who  more  than  most  men  won  general  respect  for  the 
sagacit}'  of  his  intuitions  and  the  soundness  of  his  judgments  ; 
who  was  a  Visitor  of  this  Seminary  from  1856  to  1865  ;  1  refer  to 
Dr.  "William  T.  Dwight,  late  of  Portland.  Me.  In  a  Discourse  on 
Spiritualism,  of  date  1857,  [p.  10]  he  said  : 

While  we  inhabit  the  body  and  are  thus  filling  up  probation  in  preparing 
ourselves  —  each  for  his  own  vinchangeable  state  hereafter.  God  has  deter- 
mined that  we  should  possess  just  so  much  knowledge  of  the  World  of  Spirits 
as  can  be  acquired  from  His  own  annoimcemeuts  by  inspired  prophets  and 
apostles  and  the  Saviour;  and  he  has  also  determined  that  we  should  possess 
no  other  knowledge.  The  fact  that  He  has  revealed  to  us  in  the  Bible  what 
we  thus  actually  know  respecting  the  invisible  world  and  its  inhabitants,  is 
in  itself  decisive  evidence  that  He  purposed  we  should  know  nothing  addi- 
tional. 

Gentlemen  :  "What  I  have  been  trying  to  do.  and  what  I  take 
leave  humbly  to  think  that  I  have  done,  is  to  prove  to  you  that 
the  Andover  Creed  as  a  whole  —  and  without  reference  to  any  of 
its  clauses  in  especial,  is  such  an  instrument  —  so  related  to  the 
Christian  centuries  that  went  before  it,  and  so  impregnated  with 
their  profoundest  and  most  solemn  judgments  :  so  related  to  the 
religious  qualit\'  of  its  own  time  in  New  England  ;  so  related  to 
the  faith  and  intent  of  the  godly  men.  who.  with  immense  caution, 
and  intense  and  minute  scrutiny,  laboriously,  and  by  a  wearying 
succession  of  mutual  verbal  concessions,  shaped  it  for  a  great 
purpose,  sacred  to  them,  until  they  fondly  hoped  that  it  might  be. 
letter  by  letter  as  it  was.  durable  by  the  side  of  the  precious  things 
of  the  lastiug  hills  :  that  it  is  asking  too  much  even  of  human 
credulity  to  believe  that  the  notion  of  probation  after  death,  which 


141 

I  shall  by  and  "fy  prove  was  definitely  abhorred  and  rejected  by 
them,  can  be  harmonized  with  it. 

No,  Gentlemen  I  "When  one  informs  me  that  Xeal  Dow  has 
been  carried  home  helpless  from  the  gutter ;  that  Robert  Ingersoll 
is  delivering  free  lectures  in  support  of  the  evidences  of  Christian- 
ity ;  that  Phillips  Brooks  has  exchanged  pulpits  with  Dr.  Ilerrick 
—  each  presiding  over  the  Eucharistic  service  for  the  other;  that 
the  Massachusetts  Baptists,  in  annual  Convention  assembled,  have 
invited  the  Pedobaptist  world  to  bit  down  with  them  at  the  Lord's 
table,  and  have  prefaced  that  ordinance  by  the  sprinkling  of  in- 
fants ;  when  one  tells  me  such  things.  I  am  ready  to  examine  the 
evidence  on  which  the  assertion  is  made,  before  declaring  a  nega- 
tive conclusion.  But  when  one  teUs  me  that  a  labored  instrument 
drawn  up  with  scientific  precision  to  contain  the  Orthodoxy  of  the 
past  as  concentrated  in  the  Westmiuster  .Symbols,  and  to  conserve 
the  same,  unaltered  and  unalterable,  for  the  most  distant  future  — 
iu  the  iutent  that  through  all  time  it  shall  be  training  men  to  be  per- 
suading other  men  to  repent  because  now  is  the  accepted  time  and 
now  is  the  day  of  salvation,  and  there  will  be  no  work,  nor  device, 
nor  knowledge,  nor  wisdom  in  the  grave  whither  they  are  hasten- 
ing—  is  on  the  whole  advanced,  advantaged  and  extremely  well 
pleased  to  have  its  preachers  moderate  their  message  to  the  mild 
remark  \^And.  Rev.,  Aug.  1885.  p.  147]  :  ''There  is  much  reason 
to  believe  that  this  present  life  is  the  most  favorable  opportunity' 
for  moral  renewal  iu  Christ,"  I  have  no  need  to  look  at  the 
evidence.     The  assertion  itself  is  evidence.     I  can  decide  at  once. 

II.  Such  being  the  Creed,  as  a  xohole.  in  the  respect  which  I  have 
considered.  I  now  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  it  teas  distinctly 
understood  at  the  time  ivhen  it  was  adopted  and  the  Seminary  went 
into  operation  under  it,  that,  such  as  it  teas  it  must  forever  remain  ; 
that  it  could  never  be  altered  or  amended  in  the  smallest  particular, 
and  that  any  Professor  ivho  —  outside  of  the  reasonable  limits  of  its 
own  self-consistence  —  might  change  his  mind  concerning,  and  cease 
in  all  respects  to  believe  and  teach,  it,  as  a  man  of  honor  and  of 
Christian  x>rinciple.  was  expected  to  resign  his  office,  or  inust  be  re- 
moved by  the  Board  of  Visitors. 

The  intent  of  the  Founders  as  to  this,  was  as  clearly  and  dis- 
tinctly expressed,  as  the  best  lawyers  of  the  day  were  able  to 
frame  it.  The  •27th  of  the  Associate  Statutes,  adopted  21  March 
1808,  is  as  follows: 


142 

It  is  strictly  and  solemnly  enjoined,  and  left  in  sacred  charge,  that  every 
article  of  the  above-said  Creed  shall  forever  remain  entirely  and  identically 
the  same,  without  the  least  alteration,  addition,  or  diminution. 

While  the  12th  Article  of  the  same  Statutes  thus  begins : 

That  the  trust  aforesaid  may  he  always  executed  agreeably  to  the  true 
intent  of  this  our  Foundation  and  that  we  may  effectually  guard  the  same  in 
all  future  time  against  all  perversion,  or  the  smallest  avoidance  of  our  true 
design,  as  herein  expressed,  we  the  aforesaid  Founders,  do  hereby  constitute 
a  Board  of  Visitors,  to  be  as  in  our  place  and  stead  the  Guardians,  Overseers 
and  Protectors  of  this  our  Foundation. 

Gentlemen,  I  respectfully  submit  that  it  was  an  absolute  impos- 
sibility for  the  Venerable  Founders  —  in  whose  place  and  stead 
you  sit  here  to-day  that  you  may  effectually  guard,  oversee  and 
protect  the  magnificent  charity  which  they  endowed  —  it  was  an 
absolute  impossibility  in  any  speech  of  man  for  them  to  convey  to 
3'ou,  and  to  convey  to  the  Piofessors,  and  to  convey  to  the  world, 
their  purpose,  wish,  injunction  and  solemn  command,  that  the 
Creed  on  which  they  had  at  last  heartily  agreed,  should  never  be 
altered  by  so  much  as  the  dotting  of  an  i,  or  the  crossing  of  a  t, 
and  that  you  should  exercise  the  lawful  power  they  gave  you  to 
make  sure  that  it  shall  never  be  thus  altered,  if  it  be  not  conveyed 
in  the  citations  I  have  read  from  their  Statutes  with  regard  to  it. 
It  is  precisely  as  Gov.  Strong  wrote  [Woods.,  519]  to  Dr.  Spring, 
27  Oct.  1807  :  "  The  original  Statutes  of  the  Founders  cqjjjear  to  me 
to  be  as  great  a  security  agdinst  erroneous  jJrinciples  as  language 
can  afford." 

All  this  will  be  confirmed  if  we  glance  at  the  ebb  and  flow  of 
the  process  by  which  the  union  between  the  two  projected  schools 
at  Andover  and  at  Newburyport,  at  last,  after  almost  interminable 
delays,  heart-sickening  to  both  parties,  had  been  effected.  The 
correspondence  published  two  years  ago  in  the  Appendix  of  Dr. 
Woods's  History  sheds  great  light  on  this.  Ever}'  thing  turned 
upon  exactness  in  phrasing  the  doctrines  in  the  form  agreed  on, 
and  then  in  applying  the  same  fairly  and  honorably  in  all  the  de- 
tails of  procedure,  and  especially  in  the  choice  of  Professors.  Dr. 
Woods  wrote  to  Dr.  Spring,  early  in  1807  [Appendix^  487]  that 
the  Andover  Old  Calviuists  felt  that : 

The  great  objection  is,  the  apprehended  danger  of  the  union.  It  is  feared 
that  Orthodoxy  [that  is  to  say  Old  Orthodoxy]  would  be  borne  down,  and 
that  a  counter  influence  [that  is  to  say,  Hopkinsianism]  wou!  1  prevail. 


143 

Moses  Brown  {^Aj^p.  492]  wanted  '"do  nieutiou  made  of  Hop- 
kinsianisni,  but  wanted  Old  Calvinism  up  to  the  hub."  From  the 
beginning,  one  narrator  says  [Ajjj).  508],  there  was  ''a  coistcoit 
interchange  of  bright  and  cloudy  days."  Each  party  was  afraid 
of  the  other.  In  the  Fall  of  1807  Dr.  Pearson  and  Dr.  Spring 
prepared  about  a  dozen  articles  [^Ajyp.  512]  "  containing  princi- 
ples and  conditions  of  coalition;  "  and  then  Dr.  Spring  thought 
they  ought  to  have  as  many  more.  The}-  had  [^Aj)}).  515]  to 
move  "•'  prudently  and  gradually."  first  on  account  of  the  scruples 
of  one  man,  and  then  on  account  of  those  of  another.  Now  [pp. 
508,  515,  545]  it  was  Mr.  Norris ;  now  [p.  500]  it  was  Mr.  Bart- 
let;  now  [pp.  475,  523]  Dr.  Spring;  now  [p.  107]  Mr.  Abbot. 
All  this  went  on  for  eight  months,  or  more.  Dr.  Pearson  plied 
his  old  horse  and  chaise  from  Audover  to  Xewburyport  and  back 
thirty-six  times  [_Memorial  of  bOth  Anniv.  at  Andover,  p.  110]  in 
carrying  on  these  negotiations.  More  than  six  ireeks  [  Woods,  p. 
103]  were  spent  in  shaping  the  Creed  —  with  its  three  sentences. 
its  36  doctrines  and  its  1061  Avords  —  during  which  the  chief 
minds  of  both  parties  were  ''together  as  much  as  was  consistent 
with  other  duties."  so  that  they  had  no  occasion  for  correspondence. 
It  was  tentatively  completed  \_Woods,  102]  15  June  1S07,  but  it 
was  not  polished  and  harmonized  to  entire  agreement  among  them 
until  1  December  following.     Xor  even  then  did  it  have  rest. 

One  of  the  two  men  who  chiefly  prepared  it,  has  given  this 
account  of  the  labor  \_Woods,  p.  101]  : 

It  was  the  special  anfl  declared  object  of  Dr.  Spring  and  myself,  to  whom 
was  coniniittod  this  soleiaii  work,  that  it  should  be  such  as  would  satisfy  the 
Orthodox  coninumity;  and  particularly  such  as  would  secure  for  our  School 
the  support  ami  cooperation  of  the  great  body  of  Congregational  and  Pres- 
bjlerian  nunisters  and  Churches.  [Fancy  their  putting  in  the  seeds  of  pro- 
bation after  death,  in  such  circumstances!]  We  were  well  aware  that,  in 
order  to  do  this,  the  Creed  nuist  contain  the  doctrines  of  our  Puritan  ances- 
tors, which  were  the  doctrines  of  strict  Calvinism.  If  it  fell  short  of  this, 
it  would  be  deemed  defective.  If  it  went  beyond  this,  it  would  excite  dis- 
satisfaction. The  character  of  our  Orthodox  coninumity  made  it  perfectly 
clear  that  the  standard  of  doctrine  in  our  Theological  Academy  must  be 
thorowjhly  Cahinixtlc;  nothing  short  of  it,  nothing  incompatible  with  it. 
Such  was  the  well-known  view  of  Dr.  Spring,  and  even  of  Dr.  Emmons. 

After  all  this  patient  and  adroit  thoroughness  new  troubles  arose. 
Mr.  Norris  \_Woods,  App.  p.  574]  wouldn't  subscribe  unless 
"some  minute  alterations  were  made;"  and  [p.  571]  Dr.  Spring 
had  to  "resort  to  prayers  and  tears"  before  he  did  sign.     Then 


144 

Mr.  Bartlet  stood  in  the  way  as  to  one  point  \_Ibid.  577]  and  he  was 
"a  man  of  peculiar  independence,  whom  the  world  cannot  move 
out  of  his  own  way."  Mr.  Brown  also  bolted.  These  two  were 
finally  pacified  [^Ibicl.  578],  and  gained  over,  by  the  pledge  that 
their  statutes  should  be  ''  unalterably  fixed.'"  They  would  with- 
draw and  go  on  by  themselves,  unless  they  could  have  their  way 
in  this.  Six  mouths  before  the  day  of  the  public  exercises  by 
which  the  Institution  in  its  completed  form  was  thrown  open  to 
the  public  [  TFoorfs,  579],  Dr.  Spring  wrote  to  Dr.  Morse : 

I  never  saw  Mr.  Bartlet  so  much  afraid  of  the  union  as  he  is  this  moment, 
and  they  told  me  decidedly  and  unitedly  to  inform  Dr.  Morse  that  there  must 
he  no  alterations.  For  they  are  fixed,  and  cannot  consistently  yield  any 
further.  .  .  .  Mr.  Bartlet  was  hold  in  the  expression  that  he  had  rather 
double  the  donation,  and  go  on  as  at  first  intended,  than  to  be  perplexed  any 
further.     They  will  not  submit  to  any  alteration. 

Add  to  this  the  fact  that  the  President  of  the  Board  of  Trustees, 
himself  a  Professor-elect,  and  one  of  the  two  principally  concerned 
in  framing  the  Creed  and  the  Statutes,  in  a  Historic  Sketch 
[p.  7]  soon  published  by  order  of  the  Trustees,  declared  it  to  be 
the  object  of  the  Institution  to  set  forth  and  adhere  to : 

The  great  system  of  revealed  truth  contained  in  the  Bible,  avowed  by  the 
Reformers,  embraced  by  our  Forefathers,  and  expressed  in  the  Assemhhf  s 
Catechism  .  .  .  as  must  be  evident  from  the  Creed  which  they  [its  Professors] 
are  required  to  subscribe. 

Gentlemen,  I  cannot  but  regard  as  full  of  deep  significance  this 
fact,  that  six  months  after  that  adoption  of  the  Associate  Creed 
which  we  are  told  has  forever  removed  the  Shorter  Catechism  from 
all  right  of  supremacy,  as  a  Sj'mbol,  over  the  belief  of  the  Pro- 
fessors on  the  Associate  Foundation  ;  and  as  a  part  of  the  solem- 
nities of  opening  the  Seminary  ;  it  was  thus  publicly  and  officially 
declared  that  the  views  of  the  Fathers  as  "  expressed  in  the 
Assembly's  Catechism  "  were  those  to  be  adhered  to  and  set  forth  ; 
and  that  the  Board  of  Trustees  then  in  office  —  who  might  be 
supposed  to  have  exact  understanding  of  the  facts  —  gave  to  the 
same  their  utmost  indorsement. 

I  call  attention  here  to  another  point  which  I  believe  has 
escaped  the  attention  of  previous  speakers  ;  and  that  is  that  two 
things  remain  to  be  reasonably  accounted  for  by  our  friends  who 
insist  that,  once  in,  a  Professor  may  righth'  stay  in,  so  long  as  he 
thinks  he  is  in  all  good  conscience  before  God  and  man,  able  by 


145 

some  ingeuuity  of  explanation,  or  elastieit}-  of  conscience,  to 
imagine  that  he  is  true  to  the  spirit  of  the  Creed —  perhaps  assisted 
by  some  tremendous,  and  as  it  seems  to  me  wholly  illegal,  aid,  from 
the  respected  Trustees.  One  is :  why  did  the  Founders  require  a 
renewal  of  subscription  once  in  live  years  ;  the  other,  what  did 
they  think  was  meant  when  they  said  so  much,  and  when  so 
much  was  said  in  their  presence,  in  regard  to  the  possible  re- 
moval of  Professors ;  and  as  to  what  should  be  done  in  that 
contingency? 

The  exercises  at  the  opening  of  the  Institution  on  the  28th  Sept. 
1808,  began  with  prayer  by  the  Rev.  Jonathan  French.  This  was 
followed  by  the  reading  of  the  Historic  Sketch,  to  which  I  have 
before  referred,  of  the  circumstances  which  had  led  to  the  service 
of  that  day.  Dr.  Pearson,  who  had  left  Harvard  because  Henry 
Ware  had  been  chosen  Hollis  Professor,  and  who  had  been  the 
prime  mover  in  the  work  on  the  side  of  the  Old  Calvinists,  added 
that  the  motives,  views  and  expectations  of  the  Founders  as  to  all 
this,  would  fully  appear  from  their  Statutes,  which  were  then  read 
in  full ;  thus  publicly  emphasizing  on  this  founding  day  the  unal- 
terable character  of  the  doctrinal  basis  of  the  Institution.  Dr. 
Pearson's  Historic  Sketch  with  the  Constitution  and  the  Additional 
and  Associate  Statutes  [The  Constitution  and  Associate  Statutes 
of  the  Theological  Seminary  in  Aiidover ;  icith  a  Sketch  of  its  Eise 
and  Progress.  Published  by  order  of  the  Trustees,  Boston,  1808. 
8°  pp.  68]  was  published  by  the  Trustees.  It  was  at  once  re- 
viewed [1808,  pp.  G13,  611,  6U]  by  the  Monthly  Anthology,  the 
Unitarian  Organ,  which  —  not  unnaturally  —  particularly  de- 
nounced this  tying  up  of  the  Professors  to  an  unchanging  and 
unchangeable  Creed.     It  said  : 

Its  effects  must  be  deadly  to  the  best  feelings  of  the  minds  of  the  Profess- 
ors. .  .  .  lu  other  communions  if  a  man  can,  at  the  period  of  signing,  con- 
scientiously believe  the  Creed,  his  mind  is  afterwards  comparatively  free. 
But  these  unhappy  men  are  never  out  of  chains.  It  will  never  be  safe  for 
them  to  exercise  their  minds  on  the  objections  which  may  be  offered  to  the 
minutest  article  of  their  Creed.  Their  interest  and  their  duty  must  be  per- 
petually at  war.  They  have  a  code  of  propositions  put  into  their  hands,  in 
which  all  their  inquiries  must  terminate,  under  the  penalty  of  the  loss  of 
their  station  and  its  advantages.  It  is  their  interest  never  to  improve  or 
modify  any  one  of  their  opinions.  .  .  .  This  operates  as  a  temptation  and 
premium  to  dishonesty.  .  .  .  Such  are  the  horrible  principles  on  which  this 
Institution  is  founded,  that  the  venerable  Watts  liimself,  if  he  had  been  a 
Professor  in  it,  must,  hi  his  old  age,  have  been  turned  on  the  world  to  trust 


146 

to  the  charity  of  his  friends.  What  must  be  the  effect  of  such  an  institution 
on  the  minds  of  the  Professors,  and  what  its  effect  on  those  they  are  to  in- 
struct ?    We  dare  not  trust  ourselves  with  attempting  to  predict  it. 

The  Panoplist  [vol.  iv.  p.  480],  which  was  the  Orthodox  month- 
ly of  those  days,  and  was  edited  by  a  Trustee,  replied  to  this. 
But  what  did  it  say  ?  Did  it  deny  that  the  Founders  intended  to 
bind  the  Professors  by  the  Creed  for  all  time  ?  Did  it  deny  that 
they  were  so  bound  ;  and  that  the  Creed  itself  was  so  bound?  Not 
at  all.  But  it  insisted  that  the  Professors  so  bound  were  not 
debarred  from  free  inquiry,  and  went  on  : 

They  know,  indeed,  when  they  accept  an  office  in  the  Institution,  they  do 
it  upon  the  condition,  that,  if  their  opinion  of  the  Creed  should  alter,  they 
are  to  relinquish  their  office.  If  they  are  honest  men,  they  will  rise  above 
any  temptation  from  this  quarter,  and  will  never  violate  a  good  conscience 
by  subscribing  what  they  do  not  believe.  Much  less  will  they  wish  to  per- 
vert the  design  of  such  a  Seminary,  by  introducing  sentiments  repugnant  to 
its  excellent  Constitution  and  Statutes. 

In  the  autumn  of  1818,  Dr.  Porter,  then  Bartlet  Professor  of 
Sacred  Rhetoric,  preached  the  sermon  at  the  dedication  of  the 
Chapel.     In  that  sermon  [p.  14]  he  said  : 

The  Professors  of  this  Institution  assent  to  the  Creed  of  its  Founders,  not 
as  a  ceremony  of  induction  into  office;  not  because  it  was,  substantially,  the 
Creed  of  the  great  Reformers  and  of  the  New  England  Fathers;  but  because 
in  tlieir  view,  it  accords  with  the  Word  of  God.  They  are  at  perfect  liberty 
to  renounce  these  opinions  and  embrace  others;  hut  in  that  case,  they  are 
bound,  as  honest  and  honorable  men,  to  relinquish  their  present  station. 

In  1819  some  person  who  called  himself  "  a  Lover  of  the  Truth  " 
—  he  seems  to  have  loved  it  from  a  Unitarian  point  of  view  — 
published  a  pamphlet  to  which  he  added  "  Some  Remarks  on  the 
Andover  Institution."  I  will  read  a  few  lines  from  it  [The  Trial: 
Calvin  and  Hopkins  vs.  The  Bible  aiul  Common  Sense,  etc.,  p.  28], 
as  going  to  show  what  the  outside  public  then  understood  the  facts 
in  the  case  to  be  : 

I  leave  it  to  those  who  dispassionately  consider  present  occurrences,  and 
tlie  probability  of  future  results;  Avhether  an  Institution  established  on  such 
principles,  to  which  its  Professors,  fautors  and  pupils  must  adhere,  is  calcu- 
lated to  do  more  good  or  evil  in  the  circle  of  Its  influence? 

On  the  loth  Sept.  1821,  Prof.  Moses  Stuart,  Associate  Professor 
of  Sacred  Literature,  preached  the  sermon  at  the  dedication  of 
Bartlet  Hall,  which  was  published.     In  it  he  spoke  as  follows 


147 

\_Sermoji  occasioned  by  the  Completion  of  the  New  College  Edifice, 
etc.,  pp.  26-28]  : 

It  will  be  seen,  by  this  sketch,  that  the  Founders  of  the  Seminary  were 
sincerely  and  earnestly  bent  upon  preserving,  as  pure  as  possible,  the  princi- 
ples on  which  it  had  been  established;  and  that  everything  which  human 
wisdom  and  foresight  could  do  to  accomi>lish  this,  has  already  been  done. 
We  are  aware  that  this  arrangement  has  excited  much  animadversion;  but 
we  are  not  able  to  perceive  any  impropriety  in  it.  Had  not  the  Founders, 
sincerely  believing  as  they  did  that  the  principles  of  their  Creed  were  truly 
Christian,  and  such  as  the  great  body  of  the  pious  in  every  age  of  the  Church 
had  maintained,  a  right  to  bestow  their  property  in  such  a  way  as  to  main- 
tain those  principles,  when  they  were  removed  from  the  present  scene  of 
action?  If  you  deny  this,  you  deny  liberty  of  conscience,  and  the  liberty  of 
Christians.  If  you  admit  it,  then  you  justify  the  measures  which  they  have 
taken. 

Will  it  be  said  that  the  consciences  of  men  are  bound  by  such  a  measure; 
that  Christian  and  Protestant  freedom  of  investigation  is  denied  to  the  Offi- 
cers and  Students  of  this  Seminary;  and  that  inquiry  and  all  improvement  in 
respect  to  the  doctrines  of  Theology  are  at  an  end,  among  those  who  submit 
to  such  requisitions  in  the  true  spirit  of  them?  I  know  this  has  been  said. 
But  if  it  may  appear  plausible  in  theory,  it  has  very  little  concern  with  prac- 
tice. The  Instructors  in  this  Seminary  nmst  be  supposed  to  have  formed 
their  opinion  about  the  great  points  of  theology  before  they  are  elected  to 
office  here.  If  they  subscribe  ex  anhno  to  the  Creed,  they  may  surely  do  it 
with  entire  integrity.  If,  in  the  course  of  future  investigation,  they  alter  their 
opinions  in  respect  to  any  doctrines  of  the  Creed,  nothing  prevents  the  alter- 
ation. They  are  at  liberty,  as  much  as  any  other  men  on  earth.  They  make 
no  promise  not  to  change  their  opinions,  express  or  implied.  But  the  Found- 
ers have  provided  that,  in  case  of  such  a  change,  they  cannot  be  retained  in 
their  service.  They  [i.e.,  the  Founders)  have  the  same  right  to  do  this  as 
they  had  to  espouse  the  principles  of  religion  which  they  have  adopted:  the 
same  right  that  a  parish  has  to  employ  such  a  minister  as  it  would  prefer; 
the  common,  unalienable  right  of  all  men,  to  appropriate  their  property  to 
build  up  the  Church  in  that  method  which  they  judge  proper,  provided  it  do 
not  infringe  on  the  similar  rights  of  their  neighbors.  They  had  the  same 
right  to  annex  such  a  condition  to  the  tenure  of  Professorship  here,  that  a 
man  has,  in  any  case,  to  annex  a  condition  to  the  enjoyment  of  a  gift  which 
he  has  bestowed.  And  if  a  Professor  has  common  honesty,  he  can  never 
subscribe  to  the  Creed,  unless  he  really  believes  it.  If  he  assents  to  this 
(.'reed,  and  then  inculcates  principles  contrary  to  it,  he  surely  is  not  a  man 
who  oityht  to  be  retained  in  any  important  post  of  the  Church.  If  in  the 
coiirse  of  his  investigations  he  become  satisjied,  that  any  of  the  principles  of 
his  Creed  are  substantirdly  incorrect,  then  let  him  openly  and  honestly  aban- 
don a  place  ichich  he  cannot  conscientiously  hold.  If  for  the  paltry  consid- 
eration of  retaining  his  salary,  he  will  do  violence  to  his  conscience,  and 
conceal  his  sentiments,  there  is  no  human  remedy  for  it;  but  if  he  develo)>s 
them,  the  Statutes  of  the  Founders  must  be  executed.  Why  should  they  not/ 
And  what  complaint  could  he  have  to  make,  if  they  should  be?  He  accepted 
the  office  with  a  full  knowledge  of  all  the  circumstances. 


148 

With  a  prophetic  insight  tliis  noble  Professor  seems  to  have 
looked  forward  to  this  very  day,  and  anticipated  the  exact  calamity 
■which  has  called  us  here.     And  what  did  he  say?     \_Ibid.  p.  36]  : 

This  Seminary  is  indeed  consecrated  to  Christ  and  the  Church;  it  is 
guarded  by  all  tlie  ramparts,  which  paper  Constitutions  and  Legislative  acts 
and  contracts  can  erect.  So  have  others  been,  that  are  now  arrayed  against 
the  faith  which  they  were  established  to  defend  and  to  propagate.  Let  the 
majority  of  our  Legislators  and  Jitdges,  our  Trustees  and  other  Officers  of 
this  Seminary,  once  come  to  vieio  the  principles  on  which  it  is  founded,  as 
erroneous,  or  sujierstitioiis,  and  all  our  paper  ramparts  vanish,  at  the  first 
assault. 

And  then,  explaining  why  he  has  thought  it  fit  to  say  such  things, 
he  goes  on  to  remark  \_Ibkl.  p.  37]  : 

For  what  end,  you  may  ask,  is  such  an  attempt  to  create  alarm?  My  an- 
swer is  ready.  For  this  end ;  that  you  may  see  and  feel,  that  the  safety  and 
purity  of  this  Institution  depend,  after  all,  on  God  only;  and  be  led  suitably 
to  acknowledge  Him,  so  that  He  may  direct  its  paths.  Trust  not  in  any  arm 
of  flesh.  You  have,  and  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case  you  can  have,  no 
other  assurance  that  this  Seminary  will  not  be  arrayed,  the  very  next  gener- 
ation, against  the  faith  which  it  now  inculcates,  but  the  protection  and 
blessing  of  Almighty  God.  % 

Now,  is  it  conceivable  that  such  language  as  this  could  have 
been  employed  on  a  festive  occasion  in  the  presence  of  the  munifi- 
cent Donor  of  the  building  which  they  had  assembled  to  dedicate, 
and  of  Moses  Brown  his  Associate  Founder ;  and  in  the  presence 
of  his  Honor  AVilliam  Phillips,  and  Hon.  John  Phillips  and  Hon. 
Jonathan  Phillips,  of  Dr.  Eliphalet  Pearson,  of  Dr.  Jedidiah  Morse, 
of  Dr.  Abiel  Holmes,  of  Hon.  Samuel  H.  Walley,  and  of  Mark  New- 
man and  Samuel  Farrar,  Trustees  ;  and  of  Hon.  George  Bliss, 
Dr.  Calvin  Chapiu,  and  Dr.  Jeremiah  Day,  Visitors  ;  and  then 
been  printed  with  their  license  and  laud,  unless  it  voiced  a  princi- 
ple as  to  whose  truth,  and  whose  importance  for  the  welfare  of  the 
Seminary,  they  had  —  and  knew  of  —  but  one  opinion? 

I  am  aware  that  the  Respondent  and  his  learned  counsel  talk 
aljout  ''substantial  agreement"  with  this  Creed.  AVell.  Gentle- 
men, we  too  believe  in  •' suljstantial  "  agreement  —  in  its  place, 
and  to  its  outermost  just  and  honorable  limit,  as  really  and  truh- 
as  they  can.  But  that  limit  must  exist,  and  it  must  lie  somewhere 
within  the  bounds  of  safety.  When  the  physician  prescribes  for 
3'our  child  milk  and  water,  half  and  half;  "substantial  agree- 
ment"  with  his  direction   is  near  enough,  without  weighing  or 


141) 

measuring  either  the  milk  or  the  water.  But  how  about  '"sub- 
stantial agreement"  with  that  physician's  recipe,  when  the  dear 
child's  life  hangs  in  the  balance,  and  heroic  treatment  is  involved, 
and  the  chemist  must  open  his  deadliest  poison  bottles  to  com- 
pound the  dose?  I  rather  think  we  all  want  more  than  "-  substan- 
tial agreement,"  in  such  a  case  as  that. 

So,  further,  we  are  told  that  tlie  body  of  the  Creed  is  to  l)e  in- 
terpreted by  the  concluding  promise  :  "  according  to  the  best  light 
God  shall  give  me ;  "  as  if.  if  God  should  not  give  light  enough 
for  such  a  Professor  to  believe  in  the  "  infallible  Revelation,"  or 
in  the  ''three  Persons"  of  the  Godhead,  or  in  that  clause  which 
declares  that  '•  by  nature  every  man  is  personally  depraved,"  or  in 
any  other  of  the  doctrines  previously  enumerated  ;  that  fact  is  to  dis- 
charge him  of  all  obligation  to  believe  and  teach  them.  But  this 
forgets  —  I  should  say  ignores  —  the  two  conclusive  counter  facts 
—  that  the  Professor's  promise  distinctly'  is  that  he  will  "  maintain 
and  inculcate  the  Christian  faith  as  expressed  m  the  Creed'' 
according  to  the  best  light  which  God  shall  give  him  ;  and  that 
his  work  shall  be  done  according  to  the  best  light  which  God  shall 
give  him  —  in  '' opposition''  to  the  heresies  and  errors  which,  when  he 
subscribes  the  Creed,  he  goes  on  to  enumerate.  Here  he  is  beset 
behind  and  before  by  the  intense  and  pronounced  Orthodoxy  of 
the  Symbol,  and  he  cannot  flee  from  its  presence. 

And,  if  you  look  at  the  matter  on  the  plane  of  everj'-day  com- 
mon sense,  it  becomes  eas}'  to  see  that  a  more  palpable  absuixlity 
could  hardly  be  framed  into  speech,  than  the  claim  which  our 
friends  here  make.  You  say  to  3-our  son:  "go  to  Charleston, 
S.C."  He  asks  "how?"  And  you  answer:  "go  according  to 
the  best  light  God  shall  give  you."  Now  he  might  —  in  summer- 
time —  paddle  thither  in  a  canoe  ;  and  that  would  be  good  for  his 
arms.  He  might  walk  ;  and  that  would  be  good  for  his  legs.  He 
might  go  on  horse-back ;  and  that  would  be  excellent  for  his 
general  health.  He  might  go  in  Dr.  Holmes's  "  one-hoss  shay," 
and,  if  it  didn't  break  down,  it  might  prove  a  very  agreeable 
method  of  transit.  He  might  hire  a  yacht,  or  a  two-horse  coach, 
and  that  would  be  bad  for  his  purse,  and  probably  for  yours.  He 
might  go  by  steamer,  or  go  liy  train.  And  I  am  not  prepared  to 
say  that  you  could  exactly  condemn  him,  if,  by  whichsoever 
method,  he  safely  reached  his  journey's  end  —  on  his  serious  in- 
sistence that  he  had  felt  it  to  be  his  heaven-revealed  and  solemn 
duty  to  choose  the  course  which  he  actually  took.     But  I  am  sure 


150 

that  just  cause  of  complaint  would  lie  against  him  in  your  mind, 
should  he  have  gone  to  Malaga  in  Spain,  or  to  Canton  in  China, 
when  you  ordered  him  to  go  to  Charleston,  S.C. 

Or  we  will  suppose  the  Respondent,  being  about  to  visit  Europe, 
to  desire  to  invest  a  portion  of  the  profits  of  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy in  a  new  house  on  some  one  of  the  sweet  and  sunlit  slopes  of 
Andover  hill.  He  favors  —  being  conservative  in  tastes  —  a  large 
double  house  with  Grecian  pillars,  and  an  ample  hall  running 
through  the  centre,  with  space,  taste  and  comfort  on  either  hand. 
He  has  his  plans  drawn  therefor,  and  puts  all  into  the  hands  of 
an  architect  in  whom  he  confides,  but  adds  to  the  minute  drawings 
and  exact  verbal  specifications  this  final  clause : 

And  it  is  further  agreed  that  the  said  architect  shall  give  to  his  employer 
the  benefit  of  his  best  supervisory  skill;  and,  as  a  man  of  learning  and  experi- 
ence in  his  profession,  shall  introduce  any  such  improvements,  in  harmony 
with  the  main  design,  as,  during  the  progress  of  the  work,  may  suggest  them- 
selves as  of  real  value  to  the  best  completeness  of  the  same. 

The  Respondent  hears  from  the  work  with  great  regularity  dur- 
ing his  absence  in  the  way  of  a  call  for  remittances  ;  and  when  it 
is  complete  starts  for  home,  in  the  feeling  that  though  it  has  cost 
more  than  he  intended,  it  will  offer  him  a  charming  retreat  for  the 
rest  of  his  days.     He  has  seen  it  a  good  deal  in  his  mind's  eye 
while  absent.     As  the  express  spins  by  Ballardvale,  he  glances 
toward  those  well-remembered  heights  where  his  new  home  ought 
to  l)e  gleaming  between  the  trees  —  but  fails  to  catch  the  desired 
gleam.     The  architect  meets  him  at  the  station,  however,  and  on 
the  way  up  in  the  coach,  says  that  he  has  made  rather  more  of 
that  last  clause  than  he  originally  intended  ;  but,  as  he  has  put  the 
most  advanced  thought,  and  his  own  best  and  most  conscientious 
work,   into   it,   he    hopes    for   approval.      They   alight   before    a 
structure  —  occupying  precisely  the  prescribed  external  feet  and 
inches  in  every  direction  ;  but  all  else   how  changed  !     In  place 
of   the  serene   and  classic  shape  assigned,  behold   a  mixture  of 
Queen  Anne,  and  King  Yankee  ;  with  bulges  here,  bay-windows 
there  and  pinnacles  above  ;  all  coated  with  fish-scale  shingles  and 
painted  in  all  the  colors  of  the  rainbow  ;  the  calm  and  large  inte- 
rior cut  up  into  petty  receptacles  for  hric-ci-brac,  and  faithfully 
diversified  with  all  the  modern  appliances  of  pretentious  ill  taste 
and  laborious  discomfort  I 

Now,  my  friend,  the  Respondent  wouldn't  use  any  bad  langnnge 


151 

ou  such  an  occasion,  but  I  can  conceive  of  his  resorting  to  words 
of  considerable  strength.  And  it  would  not  surprise  me,  if,  by 
the  time  he  had  freed  his  mind  in  regard  to  the  way  in  which  that 
fatal  "  last  clause  "  had  been  worked  in  the  case,  the  poor  archi- 
tect should  be  in  the  condition  of  a  man  whom  I  once  heard 
tremendouslj^  scarified  in  Court  by  the  eloquent  father  of  the  dis- 
tinguished professor  from  Yale  on  the  other  side  of  the  table ;  the 
man  being  then  and  there  reported  to  be  endeavoring  "to  charter 
knot-holes  for  two  !  " 

How  refreshing  it  is  to  turn  from  all  such  forms  of  dealing  with 
the  Andover  Creed,  to  a  deliverance  like  that  of  a  former  pro- 
fessor, published  in  the  Congregationalist  of  14  June,  1882,  a 
portion  of  which  is  as  follows : 

The  Statutes  of  the  Seminarj'  require  a  rigid  assent  to  the  letter  of  the 
Creed  on  the  part  of  all  persons  subscribing  it;  the  Boards  of  administration, 
however,  accept  a  general  and  approximate  belief  in  the  doctrines  of  the 
Creed  as  the  sufficient  prerequisite  to  subscription.  But  the  honesty  of  such 
general  and  approximate  subscription  has  of  late  been  publicly  and  exten- 
sively called  in  question;  yet  the  Trustees  are  disinclined  publicly  to 
acknowledge  and  vindicate  it. 

To  remain  in  my  office,  therefore,  would  be  to  remain  constantly  exposed 
to  the  charge,  or  the  suspicion,  of  dishonesty  without  prospect  of  open 
vindication,  and  with  the  certainty  that  whatever  I  might  say  in  my  own 
defence  would  be  largely  neutralized. 

In  justice  alike  to  the  Trustees  and  to  myself  I  must  add,  that  our  per- 
sonal relations  are,  and  always  have  been,  most  kindly.  The  problem  which 
confronts  them  is  one  of  extreme  gravity  and  delicacy.  They  express  their 
willingness  still  to  accept  from  me  a  qualified  subscription.  Such  a  sub- 
scription, while  it  has  hitherto  been  satisfactory  to  me  (and  still  is  so  far  as 
my  private  relations  to  them  are  concerned),  has  ceased  to  be  so,  because, 
by  reason  of  recent  discussions,  it  places  both  me  and  the  Seminary  in  a 
false  position  before  the  public. 

But  it  is  asked,  Why  do  you  not  remain  at  your  post  and  labor  there  to 
bring  about  a  change? 

I  reply,  first,  because  my  obligation  to  be,  and  be  known  to  be,  an  honest 
man  outweighs  all  other  obligations  to  Trustees  or  Seminary;  and  secondly, 
because,  by  resigning  my  position  for  the  reason  given,  I  seem  to  myself  to 
be  doing  what  little  I  can  towards  bringing  about  a  change  indispensable 
to  the  prosperity  of  the  Seminary. 

Yours  truly,  J.  Hexry  Thayer. 

Andover,  June  8, 1882. 

Gentlemen,  I  maintain  that  if  there  be  one  scrap  or  particle  in 
the  Andover  Creed,  which  by  any  twisting  could  be  strained  to 
seem  to  favor  such  a  doctrine  as  that  in  question,  it  must  have 


152 

gotten  in  there  surreptitiously  ;  because  from  the  day  of  the  Cruci- 
fixion down  to  the  layiug  of  the  top  stone  of  the  first  Andover 
building,  almost  every  human  being  from  whose  influence,  early 
or  late,  such  insertion  could  come,  had  been  of  another  way  of 
thinking,  and  had  been  urgently  of  that  other  way.  A  man  of 
ordinary  common  sense,  and  some  little  knowledge  of  natural 
history,  does  not  need  to  break  the  egg  of  an  ostrich,  to  determine 
that  neither  tlie  embryon  of  a  canary,  a  cat-bird,  a  crow  nor  a 
crocodile  is  housed  therein.  Antl  the  Andover  Creed  we  have 
seen  is  such  in  origin,  as  a  whole,  as  not  only  to  warrant  us  in  the 
n  priori  security  that  the  notion  of  probation  after  death  cannot 
be  found  therein,  but  to  compel  us  to  conclude  that  did  any  clause 
of  the  instrument  seem  for  a  moment  construable  that  way.  it 
ought  to  be  construed  in  some  other  way  of  better  harmony  with 
the  scope  of  the  instrument,  if  any  such  course  be  possible.  If 
my  plough  brings  up  a  little  iron  box  having  the  rust  of  centuries 
upon  it,  and  on  breaking  it  open  I  find  gold  and  silver  coins  within  : 
I  have  better  warrant  to  believe  them  the  genuine  product  of  their 
mints,  of  their  dates  given,  than  when  I  bu}'  coins  of  the  mer- 
chants in  these  days  of  imposture.  Therefore  I  insist  that,  as 
its  position  and  surroundings  control  the  just  interpretation  of  any 
document,  pre-eminently  this  reasoning  removes  the  Andover 
Creed  from  every  possibility  of  a  lawfully  lax  rendering  in  the 
particular  before  us. 

III.  I  noio  pj'oceed  to  set  forth  in  S2)ecific  detail  the  evidence  that 
Prof.  Egbert  Coffin.  Smyth^  the  Respondent .  is  heterodox  and  guiltif 
of  failure  to  viaintain  and  incidcate  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary, 
and  the  '•'■true  intention"  of  the  Founders  as  expressed  in  their 
Statutes,  in  believing,  maintaining  and  inculcating  that  there  is  and 
zvill  be  jyi'obatioit  after  death  for  all  men  ivho  do  not  decisively  reject 
Christ  during  the  earthly  life.  I  shall  call  ^-our  attention  to  several 
particulars,  in  their  order,  as  suggested  by  the  progress  of  thought 
and  language  in  the  Associate  Statutes. 

1.  The  Second  Article  of  the  said  Associate  Statutes  requires 
that  the  said  Respondent  "  sustain  the  character  "  —  among  other 
things — of  "-an  Orthodox  and  consistent  Calvinist ;  "  and  he 
has  again  and  again  "solemnly  promised  "  to  sustain  that  char- 
acter ;  while  it  is  in  the  nature  of  things  impossible  for  any  man 
to  maintain  and  inculcate  the  hypothesis  of  proliation  after  tliis  life, 
and  at  the  same  time  be  "  an  Orthodox  and  consistent  Calvinist." 


158 

This.  Geutlemea  of  the  Visitors,  is  a  proposition  abundantly 
capable  of  being  maintained  on  abstract  grounds,  and  by  compari- 
son of  tlie  liypothesis  referred  to  witli  the  fundamental  principles, 
and  only  logical  and  congruous  outcomes,  of  Calvinism.  Although 
it  was  not  a  matter  so  lying  in  his  way  as  to  call  for  any  special 
treatment,  yet  Calvin  himself,  in  passing,  made  known  more  than 
once  his  distinct  view  in  regard  to  it.  In  the  third  Book  of  the 
Institutea  [III.  25  ((3)]  he  says: 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  reprobate  have  the  same  dooTn  as  that 
which  Jude  assigns  to  the  devils,  they  are  "  reserved  in  everlasting  chains 
under  darkness,  unto  the  judgment  of  the  great  day"  [Jude  6]. 

And  in  his  Psi/chopannyrkia.  or  refutation  of  the  notion  that  the 
soul  sleeps  from  death  to  judgment  \^Tracts.  iii.  449],  he  says: 

As  long  as  it  is  in  the  body  it  [the  soul]  exerts  its  own  powers;  but  when 
it  quits  this  prison-house  it  returns  to  God,  whose  presence  it  meanwhile 
enjoys  while  it  rests  in  the  hope  of  a  blessed  Resurrection.  This  rest  is  its 
paradise.  On  the  other  hand,  the  spirit  of  the  reprobate,  while  it  waits  for 
the  dreadful  judgment,  is  tortured  by  that  anticipation,  which  the  Apostle 
for  that  reason  calls  ooSepiu-  (fearful).  To  inquire  beyond  this  is  to  plunge 
into  the  abyss  of  the  Divine  mysteries. 

So  Calvin.  What  Calviuists  since  his  time  have  held  to  be 
Orthodox  and  consistent  Calvinism  on  the  subject,  their  sjmbolic 
literature  which  I  have  already'  cited,  has  abundantly'  made  mani- 
fest. 

But  the  truth  is,  that  this  is  a  specific  and  not  a  general  state- 
ment. The  phrase  here  employed,  '•  an  Orthodox  and  consistent 
Calvinist,"  had,  at  the  time  when  this  Creed  was  framed,  and  in 
the  minds  of  the  men  who  framed  it.  a  limited  and  technical  sense. 
It  was  in  that  sense  that  they  employed  it.  and  hy  that  sense  we 
are  legally  as  well  as  morally  bound  to  interpret  it.  Prof.  Green- 
leaf  in  his  standard  Treatise  ou  the  Law  of  Evidence  [i.  sec.  295] 
lays  it  down  that  parol  testimony  is  admissible  to  show  that  words 
which  may  have  two  meanings,  one  common  and  universal,  the 
other  technical,  peculiar,  or  local,  are  used  in  the  latter  sense,  and 
to  ascertain  that  techuical  or  local  meaning.  "The  same  princi- 
ple," he  adds,  "  is  also  applied  in  regard  to  words  and  phrases, 
used  in  a  peculiar  sense  by  members  of  a  particular  religious  sect ;  " 
which  rJictum  he  fortifies  by  a  long  note  of  reference  to  the  case 
of  Lad}'  Hewley's  charities,  and  the  action  of  the  Vice  Chancellor 
thereon,  afterwards  confirmed  bj*  Lord  L^'udhurst,  and  still  again 


154 

by  the  House  of  Lords.  The  Respondent  himself  has  told  us  that 
'^  words  and  phrases  must  have  their  historic  sense." 

The  question  then  becomes  :  what  was  that  technical  historic 
sense  which,  in  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  in  New  Eng- 
land, commonly  attached  to  the  designation  a  "  consistent  Calvin- 
ist,"  in  which  sense  it  went  into  the  Creed? 

In  the  Life  and  Times  of  Gardiner  Spring,  D.D.  [i :  21]  it  is 
stated  that  Chief  Justice  Theophilus  Parsons,  who  lived  in  New- 
buryport,  and,  himself  a  Unitarian,  was  fond  of  discussing  theology 
with  his  neighbor  Dr.  Samuel  Spring,  —  chief  of  the  Hopkinsian 
originators  of  the  Andover  Creed,  —  was  wont  to  say  :  "  Dr.  Spring 
is  right ;  he  is  a  consistent  Calvinist ;  for,  if  I  were  a  Calvinist  at  all 
I  could  not  stop  this  side  of  Hopkiusianism."  Dr.  Emmons  [Life, 
422]  used  to  say  ''some  theologians  are  Calvinisticalish  ;  some 
Calvinistical,  some  Calvinistic  ;  I  am  a  Consistent  Calvinist,"  — 
this,  because  he  held  that  Hopkiusianism,  as  he  believed  and  taught 
it  —  iu  strongly  presenting  on  the  one  side  the  adorable  sover- 
eignty of  God,  and,  on  the  other,  the  deplorable  sinfulness  of  man, 
with  their  related  harmonizing  truths  —  set  forth  Scriptural  Calvin- 
ism in  its  only  self-consistent  and  efficient  form.  And,  when  the 
Hopkinsians  were  denounced  by  the  Old  Calvinists  —  some  of 
whom,  under  that  name,  were  really  inculcating  semi-Arminianism 
—  as  being  at  least  semi-heretics,  they  were  in  the  habit  of  retorting 
that,  so  far  from  being  heretics,  they  were  the  only  consistent  Cal- 
vinists." In  this  sense  the  phi-ase  occurs  in  the  correspondence 
preliminary  to  the  Creed.  Dr.  "Woods  [Appendix,  p.  482]  wrote 
to  Dr.  Spring  in  April  1807  : 

I  consider  thorough  consistent  Calnlnlsm  to  be  Divine  truth.  And  when  I 
name  Cakinisin,  I  mean  the  system  which  tlie  most  enlightened  and  respect- 
able Hopkinsians  embrace. 

So,  in  the  spring  of  1807,  he  earnestly  pleaded  with  Dr.  Spring 
[Ibid.  486]  to  withdraw  his  opposition  to  tlie  union  of  the  two 
Seminaries  because  if  one  were  left  to  be  established  at  Andover 
by  itself,  it  would  have  great  advantages;  "America.  England, 
and  Scotland  would  be  searched  for  professors,  whose  name  should 
be  popular  and  famous  ;  "  it  would  doubtless  get  tlie  most  students, 
and  be  the  most  popular  institution,  and — here  is  the  grand  ml)  : 

All  the  students  coming  from  the  [that]  Seminary  will  be  in  danger  of  hav- 
ing their  minds  prejudiced,  in  some  measure,  against  ronsifttent  Calciui'^iii  : 
and  so  the  desirable  effects  of  impartial  inquiry  and  clear  gospel  light  will  be 
obstructed. 


155 

The  first  Abbot  Professor  of  Christian  Theology,  understood  the 
phrase,  and  constantly  used  it,  in  this  sense.     He  said  [Woods,  p. 

102]  : 

Some  who  called  themselves  "liberal  Christians"  endeavored  to  stigma- 
tize it  [the  Creed]  by  calling  it  a  Hopkinsian  Creed  ;  and  so  they  would  have 
called  any  creed  which  contained  thorough  and  consistent  Calvinism, 

He  said  {_Ibkl.  p.  103]  that  the  Creed  was  "  purely  and  consist- 
ently Calvinistic,"  and  [Ibid.  p.  107]  that  he  had  been  chosen 
Professor  in  consequence  of  the  knowledge  of  his  views  and  prin- 
ples  of  '•'■  consistent  Calvinism.'" 

Now,  I  maintain  that  this,  and  no  other,  was  the  sense  in  which 
the  phrase  came  into  the  Creed,  and  that  when  all  parties  to  the 
transaction  agreed  to  require  that  every  Professor  on  the  Associate 
Foundation  should  promise  and  covenant  to  be  "  an  Orthodox  and 
consistent  Calvinist "  what  they  meant  was  that  he  should  agree 
to  be  at  basis  a  Hopkinsian,  except  so  far  as  that  character  might  in 
some  particulars  have  been  slightly  modified  by  subsequent  clauses, 
to  which  all  had  agreed,  in  the  Creed. 

AVe  have  seen  what  Dr.  Hopkins  taught,  and  what  his  pupils 
held,  as  to  probation  after  death  ;  and  it  will  at  once  be  conceded, 
on  all  hands,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Creed  to  require  a  Hop- 
kinsian to  believe  on  that  subject  differently  from  Dr.  Hopkins 
himself.  Therefore,  in  holding,  maintaining  and  inculcating  the 
possibility  of  probation  after  this  life,  the  Respondent  violates  his 
pledge  as  to  this  clause  of  the  Creed. 

2.  The  20th  distinct  and  separate  doctrinal  statement  in  the 
Creed  is  that  "  the  ordinary  means,  by  which  these  benefits  [that 
is,  the  "benefits  of  redemption."]  are  communicated  to  us,  are 
the  Word,  Sacraments  and  pra^'er."  As,  now,  it  appears  to  be  in 
the  nature  of  things  impossible  for  these  means  to  be  active  after 
death,  we  claim  that,  in  believing,  maiutaining  and  inculcating  the 
hypothesis  of  probation  afg?r  death,  the  Respondent  violates  his 
promise  to  hold  and  teach  tliis  Article  of  the  Creed.  The  word 
"  ordinary  "  primarily  means  according  to  established  order.  Its 
next  sense  is  usual  —  that  is  "that  which,  in  the  common  order 
and  succession  of  things,  almost  always  takes  place."  Crabb,  in 
his  English  Synonymes  Explained,  illustrates  the  sense  by  citing 
tliis  passage  from  Burke : 

It  was  in  the  most  patient  period  of  Roman  Servitude  that  themes  of 
tyrannicide  made  the  ordinary  exercises  of  boys  at  school. 


156 

But  Burke  never  could  have  said  this  if  he  had  understood  the 
fact  to  be,  that  only  once  in  one  hundred,  or  once  in  fifty,  or  once 
in  twenty-five,  or  once  in  ten  cases,  were  such  themes  made  the 
exercises  of  boys  at  school.  And.  surely,  tlie  fraraers  of  the 
Creed  never  would  have  said  that  men  are  ordiitm-ily  converted 
to  God  by  means  of  "the  Word,  Sacraments  and  prayer,"  if 
they  had  supposed  it  to  be  the  fact  that  millions  more  souls  will 
be  in  Heaven  who  have  been  converted  to  God  by  post-mortem 
mercies,  of  whose  nature  we  are  not  informed  further  than  that 
we  seem  to  be  authorized  to  be  very  sure  that  the  Word  and  the 
Sacraments  cannot  be  among  them,  than  have  been  converted  to 
God  in  this  world  by  their  gracious  help. 

More  than  half  of  tlie  race  is  extinguished  in  infancy.  There 
are  sad  multitudes  who  lack  the  imperial  gift  of  reason.  And  the 
pagan  nations  which  live  and  die  and  know  not  God,  have  always 
appallingly  outnumbered,  and  outnumber  still,  those  over  whom 
the  radiance  from  the  cross  has  streamed.  Now^  the  Respondent 
asks  [Progressive  Orthodoxy ,,  p.  251]  : 

Are  all  these  multitudes,  through  so  many  generations,  hopelessly  lost? 
.  .  .  Must  we,  can  we,  believe  that  they  are  eternally  damned  ?  Is  it  pos- 
sible that  God  will  never  bring  to  them  the  light  and  motive  of  the  gospel 
of  Jesus  Christ? 

And,  in  exposition  of  his  theory  of  the  way  in  which  salvation 
may  come  to  such  souls  in  the  next  world,  he  [Ibid.  p.  253]  says  : 

The  revelation  given  in  the  disembodied  state  may  be  so  luminous  that 
the  actual  time  will  scarcely  be  appreciable  between  the  moment  of  death, 
and  the  moment  when  Christ  is  decisively  accepted  or  rejected.  And  yet, 
with  some,  we  can  easily  imagine  that  protracted  processes  of  education  and 
discipline  may  be  necessary  to  make  them  ripe  for  decision. 

His  whole  theory  asks  acceptance  on  the  ground  of  the  im- 
measurable relief  which  it  offers  to  tlie  mind  in  making  it  hypo- 
thetically  possible,  if  n(-t  indeed  prevailingly  probal)le.  that 
uncounted  millions  —  the  vast  majority  of  mankind  —  whose  sal- 
vation was  by  the  old  Orthodoxy  supposed  to  be  impossiltle,  by 
the  post-venient  grace  of  the  Progressive  Orthodoxy  may  be  saved, 
in  Hades.  Then  what  becomes  of  his  agreement  to  hold  and 
teach  that  "  the  Word,  Sacraments  and  prayer  "  are  the  "  ordinary 
means  of  human  salvation  ? 

I  do  not  press  this  point  as  one  to  which,  did  it  stand  alone, 
vital  importance  need  attach,  but  that  we  may  not  overlook  how 


157 

wide-spreading  is  the  eontamiuatiou  of  the  Creed  b}'  tlie  dry-rot 
of  Doruerisin  iu  Eschatology. 

3.  The  24th  distinct  uud  separate  doctrinal  clause  in  the  Creed 
pledges  every  Professor  to  believe,  maintain  and  inculcate  that 
••  they  who  are  eflfectually  called,  do  iu  this  life  partake  of  justifi- 
cation, adoption  and  sanctificatiou.  and  the  several  benefits  which 
do  either  accompany  or  flow  from  them  ;  "  so  that  in  teaching  that 
those  who  die  in  impenitence  will  repent,  or  that  they  may 
repent,  or  that  they  can  repent,  in  the  future  world,  the  Respond- 
ent violates  his  pledge  to  this  Article  of  the  Creed. 

1  recognize,  Mr.  President,  the  acute  and  conspicuous  ability 
with  which  the  Respoudeut  has  argued  in  regard  to  this  matter. 
And,  Sir,  could  this  clause  be  looked  at  merely  as  so  much  lan- 
guage, separated  from  and  excluded  out  of  its  |)lace  and  purpose 
in  this  Symbol,  one  might  grant  to  his  reasoning  a  considerable 
show  of  justice.  But.  Sir,  just  as  the  l)ody  of  each  passenger  iu 
every  coach  of  a  train  which  is  running  at  sixty  miles  the  hour, 
shares  that  motion,  and.  so  far  as  the  track  and  the  surrounding 
country  are  concerned,  is  rushing  on  at  that  tremendous  rate  — 
as  he  would  find  were  he  to  jump  out ;  although,  so  far  as  the 
car  is  concerned,  at  perfect  rest  in  his  seat ;  so  the  momentum  of 
this  whole  Creed  has  been  proved  to  be  so  conclusive  in  the  direc- 
tion of  the  ideas  which  presided  over  its  birth,  as  to  control,  in 
large  measure,  the  interpretation  of  its  every  clause.  An}"  reso- 
lution passed  by  a  convention  of  Democrats  is  entitled  to  a 
Democratic  explanation  over  all  others,  where  such  an  one  is 
possible.  And,  for  like  reason,  every  sentence  and  member  of  this 
Creed  that  can  be  fairly  construed  toward  another  theory  than 
that  of  probation  after  this  life  ought  to  be  so  construed,  because 
we  know  that  its  Founders,  and  their  abettoi's,  would  all  have 
died  martyrs  before  they  would  knowingly  have  sanctioned  what 
they  regarded  as  so  grievous  and  dangerous  a  heresy. 

This  clause  of  the  Creed-  is  taken  almost  ipsissimis  verbis  from 
the  Shorter  Catechism,  where  it  makes  the  answer  to  the  32d 
question,  which  is  abridged  from  and  controlled  by  the  Larger 
Catechism  and  Confession  —  it  being  the  quintessence  of  the  10th 
Chapter  of  the  Confession.  "'Of  Effectual  Calling."  "Without 
further  argument  I  submit,  that,  since  God's  purposes  for  humau 
salvation  are  herein  declared  to  take  effect  for  that  salvation  only 
throngli  the  effectual  calling  of  His  Holy  Spirit :  and  that  effectual 
calling  is  declared  to  do  its  work  only  in  this  life  ;  it  becomes  im- 


158 

possible  to  see  how  in  the  good  faith  of  the  Creed  there  can  be 
penitence  and  forgiveness  in  the  future  life,  or  how  the  Respondent 
is  able  in  Christian  honesty,  through  Progressive  Orthodoxy,  to 
"  maintain  and  inculcate  "  that  men,  and  even  the  great  majority 
of  men,  may  repent  and  be  saved  in  Hades,  while  quinquenuially 
pledging  himself  to  teach  that  no  man  can  be  saved,  except  he  be 
effectually  called  in  this  life. 

4.  The  26th  doctrinal  clause  of  the  Creed  is,  that  '•  the  wicked 
will  awake  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt,  and  with  devils  be 
plunged  into  the  lake  that  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone  for  ever 
and  ever."  AVe  claim  that  this  awaking  is  from  the  unconscious- 
ness which  accompanies  death,  and  that  what  the  clause  means  to 
say,  and  what,  properly  construed,  it  does  say,  is  that,  so  soon  as 
the  impenitent  soul  becomes  conscious  of  a  change  of  worlds,  it  be- 
comes conscious  that  its  destiny  is  forever  fixed  in  the  dreadful 
conditions  which  are  described  ;  and  we  claim  that,  having  prom- 
ised to  maintain  aud  inculcate  this  belief,  the  Respondent  is  false 
to  that  pledge  in  teaching  that  there  may  be  salvation  beyond  the 
grave.  I  understand  the  Respondent  substantially  to  assert  that, 
as  the  previous  clause,  in  so  many  words,  states  that  "the  souls 
of  believers  are  at  their  death  made  perfect  in  holiness,  and  do  im- 
mediately pass  into  glory,''  and,  as  there  is  here  the  omission  of 
any  distinct  averment  that  ''at  death"  the  wicked  will  awake, 
etc.,  or  that  they  '•  are  immediately  cast  into  hell,"  etc.,  that  it 
becomes  legitimate  to  infer  that  ages  may  pass  after  death  before 
their  final  condition  shall  be  fixed,  during  which  they  may  repent 
and  be  saved.  As  —  aside  from  a  claimed  general  flavor  of  weak- 
ness in  that  direction  —  this  — not  very  wide  —  crevice  is  the  only 
one  in  the  Creed  into  which  the  Respondent  himself  ventures  to 
believe,  or  dares  to  claim,  that  it  is  possible  to  thrust  the  neo-pro- 
bational  theories,  it  will  be  well  to  glance  for  a  moment  at  the  ele- 
ments which  must  govern  a  fair  judgment  of  such  a  claim. 

(1)  In  the  first  place,  b}-  the  uniform  usks  loquendi  of  the  Con- 
fession, and  the  Catechism,  and  all  their  literature,  the  "  wicked  " 
means  those  who  persist  in  sin  and  die  in  impenitence.  Xow.  if 
the  previous  clause  with  reference  to  the  righteous,  came  verbatim 
fi'om  the  Catechisms,  equally  did  this  one  come  from  the  prophecy 
of  Daniel  [xii :  2]  in  rendering  which  the  revisers  have  endorsed, 
letter  by  letter,  the  authorized  version  :  "  And  many  of  them  that 
sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life, 
and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt;"  where  the  two 


159 

cases  of  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  —  that  is,  of  those  who  died 
believers,  aud  of  tliose  who  died  unbelievers  —  are  put  into  the 
[)arallelisin  of  a  perfectly  balanced  antagonism.  It  seems,  beyond 
question,  then,  that  the  framers  of  the  Creed  supposed  themselves 
to  be  making  an  assertion  as  to  what  was  to  happen  to  those  who 
died  wicked,  so  soon  as  they  began  to  awake  to  consciousness  that 
they  were  dead. 

(2)  But,  if  we  grant  that  no  immediate  and  instantaneous  link 
binds  the  thought  of  what  is  here  asserted  of  the  wicked  to  their 
first  conscious  moment  after  death,  aud  that  ages  of  new  proba- 
tionary privilege  may  he  fairly  imagined  to  come  in  here,  what 
follows,  from  the  inevitable  force  of  the  language,  but  that  this  new 
probationary  opportunity  meets  with  the  same  deplorable  fate  with 
the  former,  aud  avails  but  to  add  to  the  guilt  and  wretchedness  of 
those  who  were  guilty  and  wretched  enough  before  ;  since  the  Creed 
insists  —  surely  they  are  not  to  believe  in  Christ  and  be  saved 
while  still  asleep  —  that  the  wicked,  zvJtenever  they  do  avxike^ 
'•awake  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt"  to  "be  plunged 
with  devils"  into  the  direful  lake.  There  is  here  no  susaestion 
of  the  remotest  possibilit}'  that  there  can,  under  any  circumstances 
or  at  any  period  of  eternity,  be  any  other  than  this  fearful  awak- 
ing in  reserve  for  them. 

(3)  I  insist,  then,  that  the  only  fair  interpretation  of  this  clause 
is  that  which  makes  it  follow  the  silence  of  the  Shorter  Catechism 
—  to  which,  in  its  place,  I  referred  —  with  reference  to  any  asser- 
tion of  the  immed lateness  of  the  entrance  of  the  dead  sinner  upon  his 
impending  doom  ;  on  the  ground  that  it  was  implied  in  what  -was 
antithetically  said  of  the  immediateness  of  the  entrance  of  the 
righteous  upon  their  state  of  reward,  and  sutliciently  suggested  by 
the  suggestiveness  of  the  text  itself  of  the  prophet  Daniol  which 
was  employed.  I  am  wholly  unable,  therefore,  to  see  how  the 
Respondent  avoids  infidelity  to  this  clause  of  the  Creed  which  he 
binds  himself  to  maintain. 

5.  The  30th  doctrinal  clause  of  the  Creed  is  this:  '"that  man 
has  understanding  aud  corporeal  strength  to  do  all  that  God  re- 
quires of  him,  so  that  nothing  but  the  sinner's  aversion  to  holiness 
prevents  his  salvation."  This  the  Respondent  stands  sacredly 
pledged  to  believe,  maintain  and  inculcate.  But  if  nothing  but  a 
man's  own  fault  stands  between  him  aud  a  given  result,  then  he 
has  a  '•  fair  chance  "  for  that  result.  If  nothing  but  "  my  aver- 
sion ' '  to  take  the  next  train  to  New  York  prevents  my  taking  that 


160 

train,  then  I  have  a  '•  fair  chance  "  to  take  that  train.  This  is 
not  said  of  any  particukxr  man,  or  men,  but  of  man  as  such,  and 
in  virtue  of  his  humanity.  He  may  be  the  most  gifted  and  cul- 
tured graduate  of  Oxford  or  Cambridge.  He  may  be  a  New 
Hampshire  farmer.  He  may  be  a  Digger  Indian.  But  of  him, 
high  or  low,  Pagan  or  Puritan,  the  Creed  says  —  '^  nothing"  but 
his  own  "aversion  to  holiness  prevents  his  salvation."  He  may 
have  the  Catechism  at  his  tongue's  end;  he  may  '"know  nothing 
of  the  historical  Christ  and  the  redemption  that  is  in  Him  "  [Prug. 
Orth.  p.  63.]  ;  and  yet  —  all  are  on  the  same  level  as  to  that  — 
according  to  the  Creed,  "  nothing  but  his  aversion  to  holiness 
prevents  his  salvation."  Ever}'  man,  who  is  a  man,  and  "  has 
understanding  and  corporeal  strength  to  do  all  that  God  requires 
of  him,"  according  to  the  Creed  —  and  according  to  Prof.  Smyth, 
when  once  in  five  years  he  sa^'s :  '•!  believe  and  will  teach  the 
Creed,"  has  a  fair  chance.  If  he  have  a  fair  chance  God  treats 
him  justly.  Yet,  in  Progressive  Orthodoxy  [p.  64]  the  Respond- 
ent says : 

We  may  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  it  would  not  be  just  for  God  to  condemn 
men  hopelessly  when  they  have  not  known  Him  as  He  reahy  is,  when  they 
have  not  known  Him  in  Jesus  Christ. 

But  if  there  be  one  man  on  earth  who  has  not  known  God  the 
Father  in  Jesus  Christ,  who  yet  has  "  understanding  and  corporeal 
strength  to  do  all  that  God  requires  of  him,"  he  has  a  fair  chance, 
even  if  he  be  so  unfortunate  as  not  to  have  known  God  in  Jesus 
Christ.  And,  if  he  have  a  fair  chance  and  reject  God,  it  is  just 
for  God  to  condemn  him  for  so  doing.  And,  once  in  five  years, 
in  taking  the  Creed,  the  Respondent  sa^'s  it  is  just,  while  the  rest 
of  the  time  in  Progressive  Orthodoxy  he  sa3's  it  is  not  just. 

6.  The  33d  clause  of  the  Creed  requires  every  Professor  on  the 
Associate  Foundation  solemnly  to  promise  :  ''  that  I  will  maintain 
and  inculcate  the  Christian  faith,  as  exi)ressed  in  the  Creed,  by 
me  now  repeated,  together  with  all  the  other  doctrines  and  duties 
of  our  holy  religion,  so  far  as  maj'  appertain  to  m}*  office,  according 
to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  me,  and  in  opposition,  not  only  to 
Atheists  and  Infidels,  but  to  Jews,  Papists,  Mahometans,  Arians, 
Pelagians,  Antinomians,  Arminians,  Socinians,  Sabellians,  Uni- 
tarians and  Universalists,  and  to  all  heresies  and  errors  ancient  or 
modern,  which  may  be  opposed  to  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  or  haz- 
ardous to  the  souls  of  men."     We  charge  that  the  Respondent  is 


161 

guilty  of  infidelity  to  this  clause,  aud  of  violation  of  this  solemn 
promise,  in  maintaining  and  inculcating,  in  the  face  of  it.  the  doc- 
trine of  probation  after  death. 

The  first  question  concerning  this  Article  must,  of  course,  be 
one  of  construction  —  of  the  ascertainment  of  what  precisely  the 
Founders  designed  to  be  the  force  of  it.  It  is  impossible  that  they 
intended  to  pledge  their  Associate  Professors  blindly  to  oppose, 
and  flatly  to  antagonize,  all  these  heretics  and  errorists  in  all 
respects  and  every  partknlar ;  for,  with  their  various  errors  and 
heresies,  they  hold  a  great  deal  of  truth  which  cannot  be  gain- 
said. All  except  the  first-named,  for  example,  agree  in  affirming 
the  Divine  existence  ;  so  that  what  is  meant  must  be  other  than 
that.  AVe  are  indebted  to  the  Respondent,  and  his  associates,  for 
a  good  if  not  entirely  satisfactory  rule  to  be  here  applied.  In  a 
letter,  signed  by  himself  and  five  others  who  were  then  his  associ- 
ates, of  date  10  April  1882,  which  was  published  in  the  Congrega- 
tionalist  of  12  April  1882,  he,  and  they,  said: 

Any  interpretation  of  the  Andover  Creed  which  opens  the  door  to  any 
specified  heresy  [the  connection  sliows  that  what  was  meant  was  "to  any  of 
the  heresies  which  it  specifies"']  is  illegitimate.  On  the  other  hand,  its  cor- 
relative Articles  are  properly  held  so  long  as  the  truths  are  maintained  which 
exclude  these  specified  errors. 

We  need  have  no  controversy  over  this  :  he  cannot  object  to  it. 
and  we  will  not.  And  now  I  charge  him,  in  the  maintenance  and 
inculcation  of  the  dogma  of  probation  after  death,  with  opening 
the  door  to  more  than  one  of  those  specified  heresies  which  he 
stands  pledged  to  oppose,  and  with  failing  to  maintain  the  truths 
which  exclude  those  specified  errors. 

If  the  question  respects  whether,  in  advocating  the  continuance 
of  probation  after  death,  he  is  teaching  what  is  now  a  distinguish- 
ing doctrine  of  Universalism  and  Unitarianisra,  there  could  be  but 
one  possible  answer.  The  latest,  and  in  some  respects,  in  our  lan- 
guage, alilest,  work  on  The  History  of  Christian  Doctrine^  by 
Prof.  .Sheldon  of  the  Boston  University  [ii :  397]  says  : 

Modern  Unitarians  are  very  largely  inclined  to  Restorationism.  regarding 
future  punishment  as  amendatory  in  its  design,  and  Future  Probation,  witli 
its  far-reaching  opportunities,  as  likely  to  ultimate,  on  the  part  of  all,  in  the 
choice  of  goodness. 

That  ''Statement  of  Belief"  unanimously  adopted  30  Oct., 
187><,   by  the  Unitarian  Association  of  New  Hampshire,  which. 


162 

more  tliuu  any  other  formula,  has  been  accepted  and  used  by  Uni- 
tarians in  general  as  fairly  stating  their  characteristic  belief,  ou 
this  subject  says  : 

There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  death  either  causes  the  remission  of 
penalties,  or  shuts  out  opportunities  of  repentance. 

And,  five-and-twenty  years  ago,  the  Rev.  W.  R.  Alger,  in  his 
learned  treatise  entitled  A  Critical  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  a 
Future  Life,  declared  it  to  be  the  refined  and  final  shape  which 
the  doctrine  of  Uuiversalism  has  taken  [p.  429]  : 

That  the  freedom  and  probation  granted  here  extend  into  the  life  to  come; 
that  the  aim  of  all  future  punishment  will  be  remedial,  beneficent,  not  re. 
vengeful ;  that  stronger  motives  will  be  applied  for  producing  repentance, 
and  grander  attractions  to  holiness  be  felt;  and  that  thus,  at  some  time  or 
other,  even  the  most  sunken  and  hardened  souls  will  be  regenerated  and 
raised  up  to  heaven  in  the  image  of  God.  Many  Universalists,  most  Unita- 
rians, and  large  numbers  of  individuals  outwardly  affiliated  with  other  de- 
nominations, now  accept  and  cherish  this  theory. 

And  again  [p.  564]  he  says : 

The  conditions  and  means  of  repentance,  reformation,  regeneration,  are 
always  within  its  [the  soul's]  power,  the  future  state  being  but  the  imencum- 
bered,  intensified  experience  of  the  spiritual  elements  of  the  present,  under 
the  same  Divine  constitution  and  laws.  This  is  the  belief  of  Unitarians, 
Restorationists,  and  the  general  body  of  believers  known  as  "Liberal  Chris- 
tians." 

Here  it  is  in  place  to  refer  to  the  opinion  of  the  learned  Quar- 
terl}"  of  the  Universalist  denomination,  the  Unicerscdist  Revieic. 
which  [July  1886,  p.  373]  woimd  up  its  criticism  of  Progressive 
Orthodoxy  with  these  words  : 

We  close  here,  with  the  remark  before  made,  that  the  trend  of  the  "  Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy'''  is  inevitably  toicard  Universalisni.  Its  advocates 
must  either  call  a  halt  and  a  retreat,  or  be  pushed  by  the  force  of  logic  and 
the  demands  of  the  confessed  "  ethical  consciousness,"  to  the  only  possible 
resting  place,  the  assurance  that  allevilmust  be  destroyed,  all  sin  be  finished, 
the  holiness  of  all  souls  be  secured  by  Almighty  Wisdom  and  Love. 

But  the  Creed  was  adopted  by  the  Founders  in  1808,  and  we 
sliould  fairly  inquire  what  they  meant  by  Universalisni :  what  was 
the  Universalism  of  that  time,  whicli  they  knew,  dreaded,  and 
desired  to  pledge  all  their  Professors  to  oppose  ?  When  this  cen- 
tury came  in  there  were  scarcelv  five-and-twenty  Universalist 
preachers   in  the   cuuutry.   and   that  denomination   was   but  just 


163 

springing  into  life.  It  was,  yet.  cxeeeclingly  active.  Between 
1779  and  1808  there  were  in  New  England  as  many  as  one  hun- 
dred and  thirty  publications  upon  the  subject,  and  the  Founders 
thought  it  to  be  seriously  menacing  the  general  welfare,  when  they 
were  planning  and  toiling  towards  their  Seminary.  So  far  as  the 
neighborhood  of  Andover  was  concerned,  John  Murray  teas  Uui- 
versalism,  for  substance,  then.  Neariug  the  end  of  his  career,  he 
was,  when  they  were  signing  the  Creed,  in  his  fifteenth  year  as 
pastor  of  the  First  Uuiversalist  Society  in  Boston  ;  having  for 
many  previous  3-ears  been  laboring  largely  at  Gloucester,  where, 
1  Jan.  1779.  he  had  led  in  the  establishment  of  what  is  held  to  lie 
the  earliest  organization  of  American  Universalists.  A  man.  it 
would  seem,  of  singular  fascination  in  the  pulpit,  with  some 
powers  which  appear  to  have  been  really  very  remarkable,  and 
with  an  immense  —  and.  so  to  speak,  fluent  familiarity  with  the 
Scriptures  —  he  no  doubt  exercised  an  exceedingly  wide  popular 
influence.  For  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  laboring  thus 
within  twenty-five  miles  —  on  the  one  side  or  the  other  —  of  most 
of  these  Founders,  there  can  be  no  question  that  they  especially  de- 
plored his  influence.  The  younger  President  Edwards  even  had 
thought  his  labors  of  sufficient  consequence  for  public  animadver- 
sion in  Brief  Observatiojis  on  the  Doctrine  of  Universal  Salvation 
as  lately  promxdgated  by  ^fnrray  the  Univei'salist  [i :  279]  and 
many  other  Divines  had  referred  to  him  both  in  the  pulpit  and  the 
press.  Clearly,  then,  at  least  one  great  thought.  —  if  not  the  great 
thought  —  in  the  Founders'  mind  when  in  the  Creed  they  men- 
tioned Universalism  as  an  error  to  be  antagonized,  was  of  this 
man,  his  labors  and  opinions  ;  and  one  thing  which  they  especially 
meant  to  pledge  their  Professors  to  do  must  have  been  to  maintain 
and  inculcate  the  Christian  faith  in  opposition  to  him,  and  what 
they  regarded  as  his  pestilent  heresies.  Even  in  the  absence  of  direct 
testimony  one  can  inf»^r  when  materials  of  inference  are  at  hand. 
If  a  ship  be  sinking  in  mid-ocean  one  can  guess  some  of  the 
thoughts  and  feelings  and  speech  of  the  endangered  passengers, 
without  being  there  to  take  notes.  And  when  Xew  England  was 
in  that  case  that  many  felt  her  richest  ventures  of  faith  to  be  in 
imminent  danger  of  foundering  in  the  deep  sea  of  unbelief,  it  be- 
comes easy  to  know  what  good  people  meant  by  what  they  said. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  what  was  the  Universalism  of  John  Murray? 
It  was  a  very  ditferent  rniversalisni  from  that  of  to-day.  So  to 
say,  it  was  a  very  much  more  Orthodox  Universalism  than  that  of 


164 

to-day,  by  which  I  mean  that  it  had  a  great  deal  more  of  old- 
fashioned  Orthodoxy  lying  around  loose  in  it.  John  Murray  was 
a  Calvinist  "  for  substance  of  doctrine,"  and  I  quote  the  late 
Dr.  Hosea  Ballon  2d,  D.D.,  when  I  say  that  his  Universalism  ''was 
based  exclusively  on  the  fact  of  the  union  of  all  men  with  Christ." 
And  to  cite  the  learned  historian  of  the  Universalist  denomination, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Eddy  [^Universalism  in  America,  i:  152]  : 

All  men,  he  held,  were  really  in  Adam,  and  sinned  in  him,  not  by  a  ficti- 
tious imputation,  but  by  actual  particii^ation;  equally  so  are  all  men  in  the 
second  Adam. 

He  reasoned  mainly  from  the  absoluteness  and  unboundedness 
of  the  attributes  of  God.  He  was  especially  jubilant  over  his 
conception  of  the  universality  of  the  Atonement,  and  from  this 
glorious  fact  he  continually  reasoned  that  somewhere  and  some- 
how, and  at  some  time,  all  men  will  come  to  the  knowledge  of 
Christ.  Now  the  main  point  to  which  I  desire  to  call  your  atten- 
tion is  the  fact  that  John  Murray  was  led  to  advocate  —  as  nearly 
as  I  can  understand  it — that  exact  hypothesis  of  possible  future 
probation  which  the  Respondent  holds  and  inculcates.  Let  me 
call  your  attention  to  some  proofs  of  this,  taken  from  Letters  and 
Sketches  of  Sermons,  by  John  Murray,  Senior  Pastor  of  the  First 
Universal  Society  in  Boston,  Boston,  1812-13,  thus  : 

To  assert  that  God  cannot  manifest  himself  and  his  redeeming  grace  to 
the  soul  which  has  departed  from  this  state  of  things,  is  indeed  most  arro- 
gantly to  limit  the  Holy  One  of  Israel.  I  might  with  infinitely  more 
propriety  assert,  that  I  could  not  make  you  understand  me,  except  you 
continued  in  this  house.  Our  bodies  are  said  to  be  a  house.  When  this 
house  of  our  earthly  tabernacle  is  dissolved,  etc.  Can  an  Omnipotent  God 
be  necessitated  to  speak  to  tlie  creature  who  is  the  work  of  his  hand,  in  any 
particuiar  place,  or  at  any  particular  time?  Is  God  oliliged  to  speak  to  us 
in  this  honse,  and  nowhere  else?  Can  we  not  hear  his  voice,  except  we  are 
encrusted  in  this  earthly  tenement?  Cannot  the  children  understand  the 
sovereign  goodness  of  paternal  Deity  elsewhere?  If  they  cannot,  what  then 
must  become  of  those  infants — every  infant  who  departs  out  of  time? 
[i:  2G3]. 

Here  was  a  whole  world  of  unbelievers,  who  not  only  went  out  of  the 
world  in  a  state  of  unbelief,  but  were  imprisoned  in  the  same  state  for 
upwards  of  two  thousand  years.  But,  although  the  preaching  of  Noah 
could  not  convert  them  while  in  the  body,  the  preaching  of  the  Spirit  of 
Jesus  could  when  out  of  the  body.  ...  I  never  heard  of  any  individual  who 
had  the  boldness  to  affirm  that  every  infant  must  be  eternally  damned.  Yet 
if  no  human  being  can  obtain  life  eternal  without  the  knowledge  of  God, 
and  if  all  these  little  human  beinsfs  have  not  the  knowledge  of  God  in  the 
present  state,  as  it  is  notorious  laey  have  not  the  knowleage  either  of  good 


165 

or  evil;  and  if  there  be  i.o  knowledge  of  God,  save  what  is  communicated 
to  the  soul  while  in  the  body,  then  not  some  infants  only,  but  every  infant 
and  ideot  that  ever  came  into  this  world,  with  almost  all  the  rest  of  the 
human  race,  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  will  be  banished  from  the 
presence  of  the  Father  of  their  spirits,  etc.  [i:  291]. 

F.  Now  you  talk  of  the  day  of  judgment,  I  wish  you  would  give  me  your 
opinion  of  the  state  of  departed  spirits. 

Miirra;/.  Why,  Sir.  I  believe  that  until  the  second  coming  of  our  Savioiu-, 
they  have  a  world  of  their  own. 

F.  And  do  you  think  the  world  in  which  you  suppose  they  are,  is  the 
residence  of  all  departed  spirits? 

Murray.  I  do  not;  I  believe  all  those  who  depart  in  the  same  frame  of 
mind  with  the  thief  upon  the  cross,  to  whom  our  Saviour  said,  "This  day 
Shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  paradise"  will  keep  high  holy  day  with  God.  In 
other  words,  I  am  of  opinion,  that  the  Assembly  of  Divines  were  perfectly 
correct,  who  say  in  their  Catechism:  "The  souls  of  believers  are,  at  their 
death,  made  perfect  in  holiness,  and  do  immediately  pass  into  glory  "  [i :  332]. 

Dr.  N.  I  assert,  Sir,  that  no  one  will  ever  be  saved  hereafter  who  does  not 
believe  in  this  world;  for  "now  is  the  accepted  time,  now  is  the  day  of 
salvation;"  this  is  our  state  of  probation. 

Murray.  Yes,  Sir;  now,  and  to  eternity,  will  be  the  day  of  salvation. 
But  what  do  you  mean  by  the  day  of  probation? 

Lr.  N.  Why,  Sir,  if  they  do  not  improve  the  present  time,  they  never 
will  have  another  offer. 

Murray.     Another  offer  of  what.  Sir  ? 

Dr.  N.     Of  grace. 

Murray.  Does  God  offer  grace  to  dead  men?  Is  it  not  said,  "Ye  are 
dead,  but  your  life  is  hid  with  Christ,  in  God." 

Dr.  N.    Ay,  that  is  spoken  to  beUevers  only. 

Murray.  But  oiu-  Apostle  says:  "the  love  of  Christ  constraineth  us, 
because  we  thus  judge,  if  one  died  for  all  then  were  all  dead." 

Dr.  N.  Well,  Sir,  notwithstanding  this,  there  are  none  who  will  be  saved 
eternally,  who  do  not  know  God  in  this  life,  and  believe  in  Jesus  Christ. 

Murray.     Are  you  sure  of  this,  Sir? 

Dr.  JV.     Yes,  Sir,  quite  sure. 

Murray.     By  what  means  are  you  assured  ? 

Dr.  N.    By  Scripture  I  am  assured,  and  by  reason  I  am  assured. 

Murray.  Well,  Sir,  it  is  with  a  degree  of  painful  pleasure,  I  presume  to 
assure  you.  that  both  Scripture  and  reason  are  against  you.  The  Scriptures 
declare  that  our  SaviourTwhile  his  body  continued  in  the  sepulchre,  was  in 
spirit  preaching  to  those  imprisoned  spirits  who  were  sometime  disobedient 
in  the  days  of  Noah. 

Dr.  N.    Ay,  but  the  Scriptures  do  not  say  they  believed. 

Murray.  All  who  are  taught  by  God's  Spirit  you  will  readily  grant  are 
believers. 

Dr.  N.  I  do  not  think  the  text  you  have  mentioned  hath  any  thing  to  do 
with  the  matter. 

Murray.    Well,  then.  Sir,  quitting  revelation,  we  will  turn  to  reason. 


166 

There  are  many  infants  who  pass  out  of  this  world  without  the  knowledge 
of  God.    Do  they  never  obtain  the  knowledge  of  God,  etc.,  etc.  [i:  396]. 

You  would  know  if  I  conceive  of  any  probationary  state  beyond  the 
grave  ?  .  .  . 

What  the  Father  of  spirits  will  do  with  those  who  go  out  of  the  body 
without  being  made  acquainted  with  the  things  that  make  for  their  peace, 
what  will  be  the  situation  of  such  spirits,  in  a  state  of  separation,  until  their 
reunion  with  their  bodies,  is  not  for  me  to  determine.  I  think  it  possible  to 
bring  individuals  acquainted  with  the  truth  while  absent  from  the  body,  else 
I  could  have  no  reasonable  hope  that  any  infant  could  immediately  be  ren- 
dered happy.  God.  in  his  most  holy  Word  hath  given  us  assurance,  that 
every  knee  shall  bow.  and  every  tongue  confess,  to  the  glory  of  the  Father; 
and  as  the  name  Jesus  is  literally  Saviour,  what  is  it,  but  that  all  shall  con- 
fess him  their  Saviour,  to  the  glory  of  the  Father.  But  we  do  not  see  all 
men  confess  .Jesus  here,  for  all  men  have  not  faith,  nor  can  they,  until  God 
shall  graciously  vouchsafe  to  bestow  this  blessing,  for  faith  is  the  gift  of 
God.  Secret  things  belong  to  God,  but  things  revealed,  to  us  and  our  chil- 
dren. It  is  very  plainly  revealed,  that  Jesus  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  and 
that  he  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all,  to  be  testified  in  due  time.  But  per- 
haps it  is  not  so  clearly  revealed,  when  this  due  time  will  be.  To  confess  the 
truth,  I  find  it  sufficient  for  me  to  consider  every  creatiu-e  in  the  hand  of 
God.  whether  in  or  out  of  the  body.  I  can  have  no  idea  of  any  one  making 
atonement  for  their  own  sins  here,  or  hereafter,  by  any  thing  they  can  do  or 
suffer.     Jesus  is  a  complete  Saviour,  or  he  is  no  Saviour  at  all  [ii:  347]. 

When  the  sower  of  the  evil  seed,  and  all  the  evil  seed  sown,  shall  be  sepa- 
rated from  the  seed  which  God  sowed,  then  the  seed  which  is  properly  the 
seed  of  God,  will  be  like  him,  who  sowed  it.  holy  and  pure,  as  God  is  holy 
and  pure ;  when  the  veil  shall  be  taken  away,  and  the  face  of  the  covering 
from  all  people;  every  eye  shall  then  see  the  Saviour  as  he  is,  and  they  who 
see  him  as  he  is,  shall  be  like  him.  etc.  [iii:  343]. 

Xeither  in  life  nor  in  death,  in  the  body  nor  out  of  the  body,  can  any  of  the 
ransomed  of  the  Lord  be  saved  from  misen,-.  until  they  are  made  acquainted 
with  God  as  their  Saviour.  .  .  .  Tears,  weeping  and  wailing,  will  continue  as 
long  as  unbelief,  the  procuring  cause,  shall  remain.  These  evils  will  be  done 
away  together,  not  in  the  article  of  death,  but  in  the  day  of  the  Lord,  when 
every  eye  shall  see  and  every  tongue  shall  confess  to  the  glory  of  the  Father. 
.  .  .  Why  the  Saviom-  does  not  do  this  now.  I  know  not,  any  more  than  I 
know  why  he  did  not  assume  our  nature  a  thousand  years  sooner  than  he  did, 
or  why  he  suffers  any  to  pass  out  of  this  state  of  existence  unacquainted  with 
him.  as  their  Saviour.  .  .  .  But  we  rest  in  full  asfurauce,  that  the  period 
will  come,  when  every  eye  shall  see,  etc.  ...  A  con.nstent  Unlversallst  is 
made  to  understand  that  every  man  is  as  much  interested  in  what  our  Em- 
manuel did  as  the  second  Adam,  as  they  were  in  what  was  done  by  the  first 
Adam  .  .  .  his  hope  extends  to  the  final  salvation  of  the  great  family  of 
man  [iii:  354,  35.5,  360,  .362,  363]. 

There  is  uo  mistaking  these  passages.  Over  and  over  again, 
from  different  points  of  view,  they  set  forth  the  doctrine  of  proba- 


167 

ble  salvation  iu  Hades.  This  seems  to  be,  •'  for  substance,"  the 
exact  h3pothesis  of  possible  future  probation,  which  the  Respond- 
ent teaches.  The  Brown  Professor's  new  light  is  then  simply 
John  Murraj-'s  old  darkness !  The  Progressive  Orthodoxy  of 
Audover  to-day,  in  this  respect,  appears  to  be  neither  more  nor 
less  than  the  second-hand  Universalism  of  niue-and-seventy  years 
ago,  which  the  Respondent  once  in  five  years  especially  pledges 
himself  to  oppose,  while  at  the  same  time  publishing  a  volume 
which  employs  nearly  sevent}^,  out  of  two  hundred  and  sixty-four 
pages,  laboriousl}'  to  advocate  ! 

Again.  Gentlemen,  we  maintain  that  the  philosophy  which  under- 
lies and  justifies  the  Respondent's  teaching  of  a  possible  future 
probation,  is  indistinguishable  from  that  which  underlies  aud 
justifies  Universalism.  Our  uuevaugelical  friends  —  as  we  have 
been  wont  to  call  mauv"  of  those  whom  the  Creed,  in  the  clause 
under  consideration,  groups  to  condemu  —  have  the  same  Bible 
which  we  have,  and  most  of  them  claim  to  pay  a  like  deference  to 
it.  Clearly,  what  makes  them  "  unevaugelical  "  is  the  philosophy 
which  shapes  their  interpretation  of  the  Word,  and  so  evolves  and 
fashions  their  doctrine.  Now  two  factors  necessarily  control  our 
understanding  of  any  message  ;  its  language,  aud  our  conception 
of  the  sense  in  which  that  language  has  been  employed.  Thus,  a 
man  who  is  anxious  to  silence  some  utterer  of  unpleasant  things, 
writes  us:  "find  the  slanderer,  and  if  you  can't  stop  him  in  any 
other  way,  kill  him."  But  we  know  the  writer  to  be  impulsive, 
and  given  to  extravagant  utterance,  and  we  never  dream  of  putting 
any  sense  of  homicide  upon  his  words  —  onl}'  understanding  that 
he  is  much  in  earnest  in  his  desire.  In  precisely  a  like  mauner 
men's  philosophy  of  the  Divine  character  controls  their  interpre- 
tation of  the  Bible.  The  Calvinistic,  and,  to  a  large  degree,  the 
Evangelical,  idea  of  God,  emphasizes  his  infinite  Holiness,  Justice 
<ind  Truth,  and  conceives  of  Him  from  the  standpoint  of  a  Ruler 
more  than  from  that  of  a  Father.  Not  denj'ing  that  He  is  a  Father, 
merciful  and  gracious ;  it  yet  looks  at  his  Sovereignty  as  a  greater 
fact  about  Him,  whose  claims  must  preponderate  when  his  Father- 
hood suggests  conflict  with  it ;  after  the  same  fashion  as  Valerius 
Maximus  [De  Factis,  etc.,  v  :  5  (3)]  tells  us  that  Zaleucus,  the  Lo- 
crian  law-giver,  was  controlled  iu  his  fatherhood  by  his  position,  in 
the  ease  of  his  grossly  offending  son.  The  Calvinist  sa^'s  :  I  am  at 
a  loss  to  know  fully  what  God  can  mean  b}'  some  of  his  tremendous 
utterances ;  but  He  would  not  so  have  spoken,  if  He  had  not  so 


168 

meant ;  so  I  will  believe  all  I  am  able  to  believe,  and  trust  Him 
for  the  rest.  On  the  other  hand  the  unevaugelical  idea  of  God 
thrusts  to  the  front  his  paternal  qualities,  and  so  exalts  them  as 
necessarily  regnant  over  his  nature  that  he  must,  it  reasons,  be  ready 
in  their  favor  to  sacrifice  all  considerations  growing  out  of  his  re- 
lation as  a  ruler  to  men,  when  any  conflict  emerges  between  them. 
The  Universalist  says:  '-imperfect  and  dull-hearted  as  I  am.  I 
wouldn't  burn  up  my  children  because  they  have  done  wrong  and 
offended  me  ;  and  it  is  inconceivable  to  me  that  God.  who  is  infi- 
nitely kinder  of  heart  than  I  am,  should  do  any  such  thing  :  there- 
fore it  becomes  to  me  a  reasonable  necessity  to  conclude  that  when, 
in  the  Bible.  He  seems  to  threaten  any  such  doom  even  to  the  most 
incorrigible.  He  cannot  mean  it.  and  His  words  may  lawfully  be 
interpreted  in  some  other,  milder,  manner."  Thus  the  "  Winches- 
ter Confession."  which,  since  1803,  has  been  made  the  test  of 
Universalist  fellowship  [Schaff-Herzog.  iii :  2429],  says: 

Art.  II.  We  believe  that  there  is  one  God,  u-hose  nature  is  love,  revealed 
in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  one  Holy  Spirit  of  grace,  who  will  [i.e.  because 
his  love  will  eventually  overpower  all  other  attributes  and  considerations] 
JinaWj  restore  the  ichole  family  of  mankind  to  holiness  and  haj^piness. 

Now,  if  we  understand  correctly  the  Respondent's  theories  as 
set  forth  in  the  publications  for  which  he  is  responsible,  he  dis- 
tinctly therein  teaches  two  things,  viz.  : 

1.  That  the  believer  has  a  right  to  dilute  the  interpretation  of 
the  Bible  down  to  the  standard  of  his  own  Christian  consciousness 
lAndover  Bevieic.  Oct.  188i,  p.  348].  thus  : 

The  Christian  consciousness  of  to-day,  which  is  itself  a  product  of  the 
gospel,  cannot  be  contradicted  by  the  gospel.  Hence  any  theories  which 
claim  to  be  confirmed  by  the  Bible,  yet  against  which  Christian  sentiment 
protests,  should  not  be  accepted.  There  may  be  waiting  and  confessions  of 
ignorance,  but  no  assent  to  opinions  against  which  refined  Christian  sentiment 
rebels.  * 

2.  That,  in  the  exercise  of  this  right  of  interpretation,  it  is 
Scriptural  to  hold  and  teach  that  many  men  in  this  world  do  not 
have  a  fair  chance  [Prog.  Ortli.  p.  251]  ;  that  it  would  be  incon- 
sistent with  God's  jusfice  at  the  end  of  their  earthly  lives  to  con- 
demn many  men  for  what  they  have  done  in  this  world  [Ibid.  p. 
253]  :  and  that  therefore  opportunities  of  salvation  in  the  next 
world  may  confidently  be  predicted  [Ibirh  pp.  93.  242]. 

We  submit  that  so  far  as  this  pliilosophy  is  distinguishable  from 


169 

that  of  the  Universalists.  the  latter  has  the  advantage,  inasmuch 
as  —  speaking  reverently  —  it  is  more  logical  to  suppose  that,  if 
God  has  set  his  heart  upon  extra-Scriptural  and  extra-mundane 
measures  of  salvation  towards  those  dying  in  sin,  He  will  carry 
those  measures  to  an  effectual  result,  than  that  He  will  allow  Him- 
self the  risk  of  being  a  second  time  postponed  and  defeated. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Board  of  Visitors,  I  rest  here  my  argument. 
I  have  tried  to  prove  that  the  Andover  Creed,  from  the  influences 
which  brought  it  forth,  and  the  quarter  whence  it  came,  with 
the  explanations  and  expectations  which  accompanied  its  enact- 
ment, publication,  and  reception  by  the  religious  world,  can  in  no 
sense  be  justly  and  fairly  held  to  suffer  the  teaching  of  probation 
after  this  life  by  those  who  are  solemnly  pledged  to  its  support ; 
and  I  have  sought  to  make  it  clear  that  the  Respondent  in  teach- 
ing that  doctrine  violates  his  obligation  by  going  counter  to  no 
fewer  than  six  of  its  definite  and  separate  clauses.  And  i»ermit 
me  to  remind  3'ou,  here,  that  the  rule  which  the  Respondent  sug- 
gests as  a  sufficient  one  for  the  purpose,  — tliat  so  long  as  he,  in  his 
own  conscience,  is  satisfied  that  he  is  honestly  taking  the  Creed 
••  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  him,"  he  ought  not  to 
be  disturbed  in  his  place ;  is  [)ractically  no  rule  at  all,  because  it 
is  suscei^tible  of  becoming  all  things  to  all  men.  Heterodoxy  is 
not  on  another  plane  from  the  truth,  or  as  if  one  must  leap  to 
another  planet  to  reach  and  touch  it :  it  is  simply  at  the  other, 
lower,  end  of  a  sliding  scale  which  slants  —  very  gradually  at  the 
first  —  from  the  place  where  the  truth  abides.  Who  of  us  cannot 
recall  men  —  some  still  living  in  other  communions,  or  cast  out  of 
all  communions  —  who  began  with  us  in  the  full  and  fraternal 
holding  of  the  same  common  religious  doctrine  ;  who  ran  well  for 
a  time  :  but  who  then  slid  off  and  hurried  down  —  always  further 
off  and  ever  further  down  —  until  they  plunged  beyond  the  outmost 
lines  of  Orthodox^'  —  some  to  land  in  Naturalism,  some  in  Agnos- 
ticism, some  in  absolute  Atheism?  "Who  does  not  remember  the 
famous  —  I  would  better  sa}'  infamous  —  John  Humphrey  Noyes, 
and  how  he  declared  himself  to  keep,  through  all  his  Oneida  social- 
ism and  shame,  —  a  good  conscience  toward  God?  I  undertake  to 
say  that,  had  he  been  a  Professor  at  Andover,  as  in  1830  he  was  a 
student  there,  he  might  —  on  the  plea  of  the  Respondent  —  have 
staid  there  till  his  dying  day  :  for.  to  the  last,  he  maintained  that 
he  explained  the   Scriptures   according  to   the   best   light  which 


170 

God  gave  him.  He  did  what  his  "  Christian  consciousness  "  told 
him  to  do,  and  why  was  not  the  plea  as  sound  for  h..n,  as  for 
another?  The  truth  is  there  must  be  —  as  1  said  in  the  beginning 
—  a  limit  someiche re.  That  limit,  Gentlemen,  must  be  good  faith 
to  the  general  intent  of  the  Creed,  and  purpose  of  the  Seminary.  It 
need  not  be  any  thing  more;  it  cannot  be  an^'  thing  less. 

The  Seminary  was  founded  to  favor  and  further  Evangelical 
Orthodoxy,  as  then  in  sharp  contrast  with  Universalism  and 
Unitarianism.  And  the  question  which  you,  as  sitting  in  the 
place  of  the  deceased  Founders  —  to  guard  their  rights  and  assure 
their  purposes  —  are  to  settle  ;  seems  to  us  to  be  not  in  the  least 
what  human  ingenuity'  can  make  out  of  their  Creed  and  Statutes, 
nor  what  the  men  of  this  generation  may  conceive  to  be  "  opposed 
to  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  or  hazardous  to  the  souls  of  men"  but 
what  Samuel  Abbot  and  John  and  Phoebe  Phillips,  and  Moses 
Brown  and  William  Bartlet  and  John  Norris  conceived  to  be  op- 
posed to  the  Gospel  and  hazardous  to  human  souls.  Mr.  Bartlet 
was  a  man  of  many  deeds  and  of  few  words,  yet  we  find  him 
writing,  just  as  this  founding  was  going  on  [25  Nov.,  1807],  to 
defend  his  minister  from  a  charge  of  overcaution  as  to  the  funda- 
mental laws  of  the  Institution  [  Wuods,  p.  534]  : 

He  is  willing  to  see  things  in  this  matter  very  sure,  before  he  yields  to  the 
tmion;  he  is  on  his  guard  lest  a  perversion  should  take  place;  and  I  thhik 
we  ought  all  so  to  be;  for  the  enemy  is  breaking  in  like  a  flood;  few,  very 
few,  stand  forth  and  oppose  the  great  infidelity  that  is  prevailing  through 
our  land  at  this  day;  and  when  we  do  meet  with  any  that  will  step  forth 
and  stand  in  the  gap,  they  ought  to  be  supported  by  all  the  friends  of 
Zion. 

And  while  he  was  writing  these  words,  there  was  in  type,  at  the 
office  of  Lincoln  &  Edmands,  53  Cornhill,  to  be  sent  out  before  a 
week's  time  in  the  December  number  of  the  Panoplist,  an  article, 
designed  as  an  avant-coureur  for  the  contemplated  Seminary,  en- 
titled the  "Importance  of  a  Tlieologieal  Institution" — written 
by  a  man  who  knew  —  if  anybody  knew  —  what  the}*  were  pro- 
posing to  found  such  an  Institution  to  advocate,  and  what  to 
oppose.  And  in  the  course  of  that  article  he  enumerates  ••  many 
erroneous  doctrines  "  which  it  was  intended  to  counteract.  Among 
these  he  names  "  the  duration  of  future  punishment,  and  univer- 
sal salvation."  And  here  he  goes  on  \_Panoplist,  Dec.  1807,  p. 
-^13]: 


171 

These  and  other  like  errors  are  now  openly  avowed  and  publicly  taught; 
errors  so  gross,  so  contrary  to  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  that  whoever  had  em- 
braced them  in  the  days  of  our  ancestors,  would  have  been  thought  a  mon- 
ster in  religion,  and  deemed  unworthy  the  Christian  name. 

Can  any  sane  man  suppose  that  such  men,  were  they  now  here 
with  unchanged  convictions,  could  fail  to  regard  the  trend  and 
teaching  of  the  Andover  Review  upon  Eschatolog}'  as  "opposed 
to  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  and  hazardous  to  the  souls  of  men?" 

The  way  in  which  it  manifestly  lay  iu  the  minds  of  the  Founders 

—  and  it  is  the  way  in  which  it  lies  in  our  minds  still  —  is  that 
men  are  by  nature  lost  in  sin  ;  that  God  has  interposed  to  save 
them,  and,  on  account  of  what  Christ  has  done,  offers  them  for- 
giveness and  salvation  on  their  penitence  and  faith ;  and  expects 
and  commands  his  ministers  to  labor  to  persuade  them  to  seek 
Him  while  He  may  be  found,  and  call  upon  Him  while  He  is  near 

—  going  in  to  the  marriage-feast,  before  the  door  is  shut.  He 
expects  them  to  put  upon  the  conscience  and  the  fear  of  sinners 

—  as  Christ  Himself  did  —  the  need  of  striving  to  enter  in  by  the 
narrow  door,  because  many  "shall  seek  to  euter  in  and  shall  not 
be  able."  That  death  terminates  probation,  and  that  death  is 
liable  to  come  to  an}'  man  at  an}'  moment,  in  the  Founders'  view 
constituted,  so  to  speak,  the  grip  of  the  Gospel.  They  would, 
therefore,  exceedingly  have  deplored  the  new  doctrine  as  perilously 
enfeebling  its  power ;  as  much  so,  practically,  as  Universalism 
itself.  They  would  expect  careless  sinners,  engrossed  in  worldly 
plans  and  anxieties,  to  be  tempted  by  it  to  adopt  Felix's  answer  to 
each  new  appeal:  '"go  thy  way  for  this  time;  and  when  I  have 
a  convenient  season,  I  will  call  for  thee."  They  would  expect 
common-sense  worldly  men,  grasping  the  general  principles  now 
newly  enunciated  —  that  many  men  do  not  have  a  "  fair  chance  " 
in  this  world,  and  that  all  who  have  not  a  fair  chance  here  will 
have  one  hereafter  —  to  reason  that,  though  others  may  suppose 
them  to  be  having  a  fair  chance,  God  knows  that  a  thousand 
things  come  in,  of  which  the  world  knows  nothing,  to  prevent  their 
really  having  a  fair  chance  here ;  and  so  they  will  confidently 
await  the  fairer  chance  of  the  future.     All  this  at  the  fearful  risk 

—  as  the  Founders  must  have  thought,  and  as  some  of  us  still 
think  —  of  the  eternal  loss  of  the  soul. 

We  are  told  that  this  new  theory  is  necessary  for  —  or  at  least 
very  helpful  towards  —  a  better  Theodicy.  Gentlemen,  it  is  a  very 
serious  question  whether  it  is  worth  risking  the  salvation  of  souls 


172 

for  the  sake  of  a  Theodicy.  Doubtless  Tbeodicies  may  be  useful 
iij  removing  objections  from  a  certain  class  of  minds,  but  did  any 
one  ever  personally  know  of  any  man  -who  was  turned  *•  from  dark- 
ness to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God.  that  he 
might  receive  remission  of  sins  and  an  inheritance  among  them 
that  are  sanctified  by  faith,"  by  a  Theodicy? 

Let  it  then,  Mr.  President,  l)e  distinctly  understood  what  we 
claim,  what  we  oppose,  and  what  we  ask.  We  claim  that  the 
Respondent  has  gone  bej^ond  all  just  boundaries  of  the  Evangelical 
faith  in  the  direction  of  Universalism  ;  that  his  reasonings  are  logi- 
cally indistinguishable  from  those  of  Universalists,  so  that  Uni- 
versalists  are  justified  in  claiming,  as  they  do  claim,  him  as  a 
substantial  —  though  not  yet  a  self-confessed  —  recruit  to  their 
ranks.  AVe  oppose  his  further  continuance  in  this  false,  and  for 
the  Seminary  perilous,  position.  And  we  ask  that  as  conservators 
of  the  Creed  and  Statutes  of  the  Seminary,  you  will  admonish  or 
remove  him,  as  to  your  judgment  shall  seem  wisest  and  best. 

"We  have  —  we  repeat  —  never  objected,  and  never  desired  to 
object,  to  any  legitimate  progress  in  that  Seminary  within  the  limits 
of  Evangelical  truth.  We  have  no  desire  to  criticise  any  adjust- 
ments of  New  School  or  Old  School,  nor  do  we  find  fault  with  any 
philosophy  of  explanation  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  which 
preserves  their  Orthodox\-  under  the  Creed.  What  we  object  to, 
and  all  that  we  object  to,  is,  that  the  Respondent  has  gone  beyond 
the  utmost  reasonable  limits  of  such  lawful  progress,  and  broken 
out  into  a  substantial  heterodoxy  to  which  the  Creed  stands  neces- 
sarily and  ineradicable"  opposed. 

But,  it  is  said  that  consequences  should  give  us  pause.  It  has 
been  claimed  that  to  enforce  the  Statutes  in  their  literal  strictness, 
would  be  to  destroy  the  Seminary  by  depopulating  it  of  instructors. 
Yet  we  do  not  lielieve  that  all  the  Westminster  theologians  are 
dead,  nor  that  it  would  prove  a  thing  impossible — if  even  very 
difficult  —  were  every  one  of  these  professorial  chairs  left  vacant 
to-morrow,  speedily  to  find  competent  men  to  fill  them,  who  could 
take  the  Creed  not  only  in  the  sense.  1)ut  with  all  the  cordiality,  of 
the  Founders.  Yet  if  that  could  not  be.  we  respectfully  submit 
that  there  would  be  no  doul)t  that  the  Courts,  by  virtue  of  a  decree 
of  Cy-pres,  would  re-establish  some  legal  method  by  which  men 
with  a  conscience  could  conscientiously  fill  the  vacant  places.  Rut 
if  that  could  not  be.  we  still  further  submit  that  it  might  be  lietter 
to  close  the  Seminary,  than  to  keep  it  open  through  a  chronic  and 


crescent  dishonesty  wliicli  cannot  fail  to  infect  and  poison  every 
rill  of  influence  flowing  thence. 

And  on  this  point  we  beg  leave  to  adopt  the  language  of  one 
who  '•  had  perfect  nnderstanding  of  all  things  from  the  very  first." 
and  who  early  contemplated  the  exact  contingency  here  suggested. 
More  than  a  generation  has  passed  since  he  said  [Hoods,  3G2]  : 

But  suppose  the  time  should  come,  when  no  man  could  be  foimd,  who, 
besides  possessing  the  other  necessarj-  qualifications,  would  be  willing  to  sub- 
scribe to  the  Doctrinal  Standard  appointed  by  the  Founders,  taken  without 
any  exceptions,  in  its  true  and  obvious  sense.  What  should  be  done?  With- 
out hesitation  I  reply  that  the  Guardians  of  the  Institution,  rather  than 
countenance  any  deviations  from  the  Creed,  or  any  violation  of  the  Statutes, 
should  suspend  the  operation  of  the  Seminary.  The  principle  of  public  jus- 
tice and  official  fidelity  is  far  more  important  than  any  good  which  could  be 
accomplished  by  an  unlawful  use  of  charity  funds. 

Even  heathen  ethics  rose  to  the  height  of  the  maxim  :  fiat  jus- 
titia.  runt  ca-han.  And  may  it  nut  be  possible  that  a  great  silence 
on  that  "holy  hill'' — dumb  for  the  truth's  sake  —  might  more 
make  for  righteousness  than  a  thousand  voices  issuing  thence  to 
proclaim  a  message  which,  to  the  minds  which  commissioned  it  to 
speak.  God  never  sent? 

Sir  !  the  heavens  never  do  fall,  when  right  things  —  though  the}' 
be  perplexing,  and  sad,  and  difficult  things  —  are  done  ;  but  those 
right  things  bear  themselves  aloft  as  pillars  of  salvation  on  which 
the  great  future  rests  calm  and  secure. 

And  this  is  what  we  ask  from  you  —  a  right  decision.  We 
hold  the  Respondent  in  sincere  respect  and  long  regard.  AVe  should 
esteem  it  a  genuine  misfortune  to  the  cause  of  sacred  learning 
were  he  to  be  displaced.  AVe  have  never  so  much  as  suspected 
his  perfect  integrity  of  purpose.  Could  he  resume  his  ancient  re- 
lation of  fidelity  to  the  truth  as  he  formerly  held  and  taught  it.  we 
should  ask  for  no  better  man  in  his  place.  But  we  do  not  see  how 
he.  or  even  an  angel  from  heaven,  preaching  another  gospel  than 
that  which  the  Creed  preaches,  can  be  in  the  way  of  his  duty  in 
the  chair  which  he  holds  in  the  Seminary. 

Gentlemen,  we  liave  counted  ourselves  happy,  that,  iu  this  pain- 
ful and  difficult  task,  we  have  had  the  privilege  to  speak  to  those 
who  are  expert  in  all  these  customs  and  questions,  and  who  have 
nobly  illustrated  an  unbounded  patience.  Eminent  in  Church,  and 
eminent  in  State,  and  eminent  iu  l)0th  Church  and  State,  each  of 


1 


174 

you  has  been  already  privileged  to  associate  his  name  with  useful 
and  shining  deeds.  But,  in  whatever  distinguished  manner  you 
may  already  have  served  your  generation,  suffer  me  to  say  that  I 
believe  —  in  the  gi'eatness  and  far  reach  of  the  issues  now  await- 
ing your  decision  —  you  confront  the  supreme  moment  of  your 
lives ! 

God  help  you  so  to  decide  this  weighty  question  that  by  and  by 
—  seri  in  caelum  redeatis  —  it  shall  be  given  you  to  gi-eet  with 
exceeding  joy  the  good  and  generous  men  whom  you  represent 
to-day  in  your  solemn  office ;  and  with  a  still  richer  ecstasy  to 
stand  approved  in  the  radiant  presence  of  Him  whom  to  know  is 
Life  —  whom  to  serve  is  Heaven  ! 


CLOSING   ARGUMENT  BY   HON.   E.  R.  HOAR. 


Mr.  President,  and  Gentlemen,  —  When  about  two  years 
ago,  two  years  ago,  I  think  it  was,  last  summer,  some  gentle- 
men of  eminence  in  the  branch  of  the  Congregational  Church 
which  has  Audover  largely  for  its  representative,  came  to  me 
for  advice  as  a  lawyer  on  what  were  the  remedies  which  the 
law  gave  them,  and  in  what  manner  those  remedies  should  be 
pursued  in  the  case  of  a  departure  from  the  Creed  of  the  Semi- 
nary at  Andover,  1  felt  it  was  a  very  high  professional  compli- 
ment. Those  gentlemen  were  aware  that  I  had  not  entertained 
the  same  theological  opinions  which  belong  to  that  institution, 
or  to  their  branch  of  the  Congregational  denomination.  I  gave 
them  a  written  opinion.  And  when,  afterward,  a  committee  of 
the  alumni  and  one  of  the  Trustees  were  about  to  present  to  the 
notice  of  this  Board  of  Visitors  a  matter,  and  ask  them  to  take 
the  action  upon  it  which  their  sense  of  dut}"  might  require,  I  was 
again  applied  to  as  to  the  form  and  method  of  presentation  ;  what 
the  questions  would  be  for  your  decision,  and  by  what  rules  of 
evidence  or  form  of  procedure  the  case  would  be  governed.  And 
again  I  consented  to  appear  before  your  Board,  and  that  is  my 
whole  connection  with  the  case.  I  was  gratified  to  find  that  these 
gentlemen,  representing  as  I  believe  a  considerable  constituencj', 
were  satisfied  that  I  could  attend  to  the  legal  aspects  of  their  case, 
to  what  rules  of  law  and  of  procedure  should  govern  its  presenta- 
tion, somewhat  to  tlieir  assistance,  and  to  produce  the  result  that 
there  might  be  an  effectual  decision  of  the  question  which  iuter- 
ested  their  minds. 

I  have  been  sony  when  coming  here  to  find  in  the  opening  of 
the  case  for  the  respondent,  by  tlie  eminent  counsel  who  was  em- 
ployed to  render  that  service,  that  he  thought  it  necessary,  that 
he  even  could  think  it  possible  that  it  could  be  of  any  use  to  him 
or  his  cHent's  cause,  to  make  the  personal  attack  which  he  did 

175 


176 

upon  these  gentlemeu  who  conduct  this  prosecution,  if  you  may 
term  it  so.  When  they  signed  themselves  "A  committee  of  the 
Ahimni,"  and  have  stated  before  3-ou  that  the}-  were  such,  and  it 
was  not  set  out  who  these  particular  alumni  were,  he  drew  the 
charitable  construction,  without  the  slightest  evidence  to  support 
it,  which  he  stated  in  these  words  of  his  pamphlet:  '"The  object 
of  this  description  apparently  was  to  gain  a  credit  for  their  charges 
,by  appearing  to  act  in  a  representative  character."  And  he  then 
says,  ''As  it  now  appears,  these  four  men  comprise  all  the  Trus- 
tees and  all  the  alumni  who  engineer  this  movement."  What 
makes  it  so  appear?  Who  has  been  asked  to  testify  about  it? 
Who  has  intimated  any  such  thing,  except  the  gentleman  in  his 
speech,  and  on  a  subject  upon  wliich  apparently  he  has  no  personal 
knowledge,  and  therefore  I  take  it,  did  not  undertake  to  appear 
as  a  witness  concerning  it.  And  upon  that  foundation  he  goes  on 
and  compares  these  gentlemen  to  the  men  in  liuckram  of  Falstaff : 
"What  slaves  are  ye  to  hack  ^our  swords  as  ye  have  done,  and 
then  say  it  was  in  fight!"  A  prettj' strong  suggestion  of  false- 
hood and  deceit  in  gentlemen  occupying  the  position  of  Christian 
ministers,  and  men  of  character,  in  this  community  !  Does  my 
friend  who  made  that  statement.  I  must  believe  without  due  con- 
sideration, think  that  this  Board  of  Visitors  are  a  set  of  fools  ; 
that  you  come  here  in  absolute  ignorance  of  whatever  has  hap- 
pened in  this  country'  in  theological  circles  within  the  last  two  or 
three  years?  No  following !  Men  in  buckram!  Has  my  friend 
heard  nothing  of  the  echoes  of  the  great  contest  at  Des  Moines? 
Is  this  a  new  matter  that  is  suddenly  put  before  you  by  some  pre- 
tenders, or  is  it  a  grave  question  in  the  Christian  churches,  on 
which  your  authority  has  been  invoked,  and  on  which  your  decis- 
ion will  be  held  in  great  value  b}'  a  large  company  of  Christian 
believers  ? 

There  is  a  good  deal  in  my  brother's  opening  of  tliis  case  on 
which,  if  time  would  serve,  —  and  I  do  not  wish  to  take  up  much 
time  on  it,  —  I  should  desire  to  comment  a  little.  There  followed 
this  attack  upon  the  gentlemen  who  conduct,  at  your  request,  this 
prosecution,  various  technical  objections  to  the  mode  of  procedure. 
At  the  earlier  hearing  of  the  case,  when  we  first  came  before  this 
Board,  the  objection  was  that  it  ought  to  be  governed  by  all  thu 
rules  of  criminal  procedure,  aud  it  was  urged  and  urged  strenu- 
oush'.  A  change  of  heart,  or  a  change  of  mind,  seems  to  have 
come  across  the  o-eutlemeu  who  made  that  contention  ;  and  now 


177 

they  say  it  is  a  suit  in  the  nature  of  a  suit  in  equity  governing  a 
trust,  and  that  it  is  enforcing  a  contract,  and  that  the  rules  of 
civil  procedure  must  be  followed,  and  there  must  be  a  party  in 
interest  who  has  a  right  to  prosecute.  Well,  I  thought  we  went 
over  all  that  sufficiently,  and  I  think  all  that  needs  to  be  said 
about  that  now  is  that  under  the  Establishment  of  this  lOstitution 
for  theological  education  at  Andover,  the  Founders  have  provided 
that  there  should  be  a  Board  of  Visitors,  whose  duty  it  should  be 
to  see  that  the  scheme  u[)ou  which  their  foundation  was  established 
should  be  faithfully  pursued  and  carried  out,  whose  duty  it  is  made 
to  inquire  into  it,  and  who,  when  they  come  to  execute  that  duty, 
may  act  for  themselves,  just  as  far  as  they  please. 

This  is  not  any  suit  to  transfer  the  funds  at  Andover.  It  is  not 
a  suit  on  the  part  of  the  public  to  see  if  there  is  a  perversion  of 
trust.  And  I  may  say  that  as  this  opening  address  was  made.  I 
concluded  at  the  time  it  was  addressed  much  more  to  the  audience 
in  the  further  part  of  the  hall  than  to  the  tribunal ;  and  it  got  to 
be  almost  curiously  noticeable  that  sometimes  in  the  most  impres- 
sive parts  of  it,  when  I  looked  up  at  the  gentleman  who  was  de- 
livering it,  his  back  was  turned  entirely  to  the  tribunal,  and  his 
remarks  were  all  delivered  in  the  other  direction.  This  Board 
is  not  governed  by  any  system  of  ecclesiastical  law,  and  it  was 
not  held  to  be  so  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Massachusetts  when 
they  had  the  matter  under  consideration  in  the  case  of  Prof. 
Murdock.  The  Board  of  Visitors,  whose  dut}'  it  is  to  see  that  a 
thing  is  carried  on  in  a  certain  wa}-,  and  upon  a  certain  scheme, 
have  a  right  to  inform  themselves,  have  a  right  to  proceed  in  any 
manner  which  is  suitable  and  proper  to  give  them  the  information 
necessary  to  discharge  their  duty  ;  the  only  limitation  being  that, 
where  they  are  to  deal  with  a  cjuestion  which  affects  a  private 
right,  like  the  continuance  of  a  professor  in  his  office,  they  must 
proceed  consistently  with  the  legal  principles  wliich  protect  per- 
sonal rights,  and  that  is  the  whole  of  it.  Our  friends  talk  about 
this  being  like  a  libel  in  an  ecclesiastical  court,  a  suit  in  equit}',  a 
case  which  must  have  a  party  in  interest  for  the  plaintiff ;  there  is 
no  such  case  here,  nothing  of  the  sort.  You  gentlemen,  under 
the  constitution  of  the  Andover  Theological  Seminary  assumed 
certain  duties.  You  were  yourselves  required  each  to  make  and 
subscribe  to  a  declaration  of  your  belief  in  the  Seminary  Creed, 
and  you  were  enjoined,  and  by  the  acceptance  of  the  trust  you 
promised  and  engaged,  to  look  to  it  that  the  purpose  of  the  found- 


178 

ers  iu  uiaiutaiuing  that  Creed  should  be  preserved  inviolate  iu  that 
institution,  so  far  as  you  had  jurisdiction  and  authority.  And 
when  by  a  complaint  from  the  community  at  large,  or  by  the  re- 
quest of  any  single  man  who  chooses  to  come  to  you,  (because  in 
the  diflfusiou  and  teaching  of  religious  truth  ever}-  member  of  the 
community  and  of  the  human  race  has  an  interest,)  you  feel 
obliged  to  exercise  your  authority  and  make  an  inquiry,  you  say 
to  the  person  or  persons  who  have  called  to  30ur  attention  the 
current  rumors  or  criticisms,  whatever  term  may  be  used,  with 
regard  to  the  teaching  at  Andover  as  being  inconsistent  with  the 
Creed,  "We  will  inquire  into  it,  and  for  greater  convenience  we  ask 
3'ou  to  inform  us  in  what  particulars,  and  by  whom,  any  act  is  done 
in  violation  of  the  constitution  of  the  Seminary.  They  do  so,  and 
they  come  before  you  and  offer  you  the  proof.  You  take  their 
statement  and  send  it  to  the  person  concerned,  to  give  him  a  full 
and  fair  hearing,  with  everv  possibility  of  stating  any  defence  or 
any  objection  to  the  prosecution  ;  and  then  you  proceed  to  inquire, 
under  your  official  duty,  with  that  aid  in  presenting  the  case  on 
one  side,  whatever  you  choose  to  allow,  which  we  may  give, — and 
we  have  no  standing  before  j'ou  except  bj^  3'our  allowance,  —  and 
with  the  fullest  opportunity  and  right  to  be  heard  by  himself 
and  counsel  on  the  part  of  the  respondent.  You  are  restricted 
onl}'  by  the  rules  and  principles  of  law  which  entitle  every  man  to 
a  fair  trial,  —  that  is  to  say,  that  he  shall  know  what  is  charged 
against  him  with  sufficient  clearness  to  understand  and  answer  it, 
that  he  shall  have  opportunity  to  furnish  any  argument  or  evidence 
in  his  defence  which  he  desires,  within  the  bounds  of  a  reasonable 
limit  of  time.     And  then  you  decide  the  question. 

And  when  you  have  decided  it,  as  I  understand  it.  if  3^ou  have 
proceeded  according  to  the  principles  of  natural  and  legal  justice, 
your  decision  is  conclusive,  because  j^ou  have  conformed  to  the 
law  in  all  that  the  law  has  any  charge  of,  or  concern  in.  You  are 
the  tribunal  to  determine  the  theological  question.  When  it  is 
said  that  a  Professor  has  taught  or  inculcated  doctrines  which  are 
inconsistent  with  and  contrary  to  the  Andover  Creed,  doctrines 
which  he  was  bound  to  oppose,  3'ou  are  to  determine  what  is  the 
just  exposition  of  the  Creed  in  regard  to  those  doctrines,  and 
whether  those  doctrines  thus  taught  are  antagonistic  to  it.  That 
is  your  duty,  which  you  have  voluntarily  and  solemnly  assumed. 
If  on  a  pretence  something  were  set  forth  that  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  Creed,  which  was  not  iu  itself  improper  and  unbecoming 


179 

behavior,  iuconsistent  with  tlie  position  of  the  Professor.  :;::  i  you 
should  proceed  to  remove  the  Professor  on  that  ground,  the  Court 
would  interfere,  because  you  had  exceeded  your  jurisdiction,  be- 
cause you  had  undertaken  to  remove  from  office  a  Professor  who 
held  the  office  not  subject  to  that  exception.  But  where  there  is 
and  can  be  no  doubt,  I  apprehend,  in  anybody's  mind,  that  the 
only  question  is  whether  doctrines  taught  by  the  Professor  con- 
tinue to  support  and  be  in  consistency  with  the  Creed  of  the 
Seminary,  on  that  question  of  the  interpretation  of  the  Creed, 
and  of  its  consistency  with  the  teachings  of  the  Professor,  your 
judgment  is  the  final  one.  In  deciding  that  question,  you  will 
have  proceeded  accoiding  to  the  law  and  according  to  the  duty 
committed  to  your  charge. 

The  next  thing  I  wish  to  comment  on  in  this  somewhat  remark- 
able, very  able  and  eloquent  and.  in  many  respects,  interesting 
opening  of  my  brother  Dwight,  is  that,  after  passing  through 
these  technical  objections,  a  great  deal  of  space  is  devoted  to 
criticism  of  the  Andover  Creed.  It  is  hardly  necessar}-  for  me 
to  read  passages,  but  on  looking  it  over,  when  you  shall  have 
occasion  to  do  so,  you  will  find  that  the  intimation  is  constantly 
made  that  such  a  Creed  is  not  appropriate  for  such  an  Institution. 
and  should  not  be  encouraged  or  tolerated,  if  you  can  help  it.  I 
think  that  is  a  fair  statement  of  the  effect  of  Mr.  Dwight' s  dis- 
cussion of  the  subject.  He  has  addressed  to  you  a  strong,  clear, 
valuable  and  impressive  argument,  if  the  question  before  you  had 
lieen  what  it  is  wise  and  best  to  do  in  regard  to  religious  opinions, 
and  the  form  of  religious  instruction.  It  would  have  been  an 
admirable  argument  to  address  to  a  constitutional  convention 
determining  whether  there  should  l;e  any  restraint  upon  religious 
libeity.  It  would  have  been,  perhaps,  very  appropriate  to  have 
addressed  to  the  assembly  of  "Westminster  divines,  if  he.  instead  of 
the  Boston  and  Hartford  clergymen,  who  he  thought  would  have 
improved  that  body  so  much  if  they  could  have  gone  over  there, 
could  have  gone  himself  and  delivered  it  before  them.  I  certainly 
sympathize  heartily,  and  I  cannot  but  believe  that  m^'  clients  do. 
and  the  Respondents  we  know  do.  with  the  doctrine  that  the  right 
of  man  to  hold  his  convictions  on  religious  subjects  with  no  re- 
si)onsibility  but  to  his  Ciod.  and  with  perfect  freedom  for  inquiry, 
is  one  of  the  best  settled  of  American  institutions.  We  all  abide 
by  it  and  all  accept  it.  But  what  has  that  great  doctrine  to  do 
with  this  case?     It  has  no  more  to  do  with  it  than  what  the  elo- 


180 

quent  gentleman,  wlio  spoke  iu  so  impressive  and  loud  a  tone  at 
the  close  of  the  respondent's  case,  said  about  Procrustes's  bed,  — 
that  you  were  putting  the  professors  of  Andover  on  a  Procrustean 
bed,  and  you  should  not  do  any  thing  of  that  kind  ;  the  furni- 
ture of  the  Andover  bed-chambers,  if  you  did  that,  he  thought 
would  be  horrid.  But  that  is  an  argument  against  having  any 
Creed  ;  and  when  that  question  comes  up  befoi-e  any  body,  I  shall 
listen  to  the  exposition  of  m}^  friend  on  the  subject  with  great 
pleasure,  and  I  have  no  doubt  with  comfort  and  satisfaction. 

But  that  is  not  the  question  before  you.  gentlemen  of  this  Board 
of  Visitors.  The  whole  of  Prof.  Dwight's  argument  on  that  sub- 
ject, as  the  whole  burden  of  all  his  associates  have  said,  has 
been  that  you  must  somehow  or  other  construe  this  Creed  into 
something  that  it  never  meant,  if  you  find  that  it  comes  across  any 
gentleman's  opinions,  who  is  honestly  and  studiously,  in  the  fear 
of  God  and  the  love  of  man,  endeavoring  to  pursue  a  course  of  iu- 
struction.  That  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  that  I  came 
here  to  hear  discussed,  and  I  think,  having  listened  atteutiveh\  I 
was  going  to  say  nine,  but  I  should  say,  perhaps,  fifteen  or  six- 
teen hours,  to  what  has  been  said  in  behalf  of  the  Eespondents, 
that  very  much  too  much  time  has  been  devoted  to  that  which  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  case. 

It  has  been  stated  that  the  New  England  idea,  and  the  idea  of 
Cromwell  and  his  Independents,  was  to  claim  for  any  Creed  that 
it  should  be  favorable  to  tender  consciences.  My  recollection 
travels  back,  — I  have  not  verified  it,  and  so  it  is  not  to  be  taken 
as  a  citation  thai  brother  Russell  has  got  to  have  to  look  over  and 
make  an  answer  to.  — to  a  time  when  I  read  that  Oliver  Cromwell, 
on  one  occasion  when  au  Irish  town  that  he  was  gomg  to  take  by 
storm  sent  a  flag  of  truce  to  capitulate,  and  in  proposing  terms  of 
capitulation  asked  among  other  things  that  they  should  have  liberty 
of  conscience,  replied  in  this  memorable  utterance,  after  discuss- 
ing the  other  terms  of  capitulation  :  ''  As  for  what  you  saj'  touch- 
ing liberty  of  conscience,  God  forbid  that  I  should  ever  disturb 
any  man's  conscience.  But  if  by  liberty  of  conscience  you  mean 
libert}'  to  celebrate  the  Mass,  God  forbid  that  that  should  ever 
be  allowed  where  the  Parliament  of  England  hath  authority." 
(Laughter. ) 

Mr.  Russell.  That  is  the  exact  precedent  you  put  this  case 
under.  You  say.  "  You  may  have  liberty  of  conscience  if  you  do 
not  infringe  on  these  gentlemen." 


181 

Mr.  IIoAR.  You  mny  have  libert\"  of  conscience  where  you 
have  a  right  to  be  in  its  exercise.  Liberty  of  conscience  is  not  to 
be  indulged  which  will  exclude  others  who  have  equal  rights.  My 
friend  and  neighbor,  Mr.  Emerson.  I  remember  once  sa3-ing  in  a 
public  address,  when  the  subject  of  liberty  of  speech  was  under 
consideration,  that  he  thought  sufficient  attention  had  not  been 
devoted  to  the  right  of  people  to  the  libert}'  of  their  ears :  and  I 
do  not  know  but  the  Visitors  think  that  in  the  discussion  that  has 
gone  on  here,  that  fundamental  right  has  been  a  little  iufriugt-d. 
(Laughter.) 

When  you  go  off  on  to  the  question  of  liberty  of  conscience, 
the  point  is,  where  do  you  draw  the  line  ?  That  our  Pilgrim  fathers, 
and  Oliver  Cromwell  and  his  Ironsides,  and  the  Founders  of  the 
Andover  Seminary,  and  a  large  body  of  the  Congregational  Church 
of  this  very  day,  have  certain  convictions  which  they  consider 
absolutely  essential  to  any  religious  character,  however  erroneously, 
I  do  not  think  any  intelligent  person  can  deny.  And  when  some 
donors,  holding  these  convictions,  and  with  that  feeling,  have  un- 
dertaken to  say  that  in  the  Institution  which  they  established  in- 
struction shall  be  carefully  confined  to  a  certain  line,  and  have  a 
right  legall}'  to  say  so,  and  the  question  is  whether  the  iustraction 
given  conforms  to  that  line,  there  is  no  question  arising  about  lib- 
erty of  conscience,  or  whether  it  would  have  been  best  for  them 
to  do  it.     Tliey  have  done  it.  and  there  it  is. 

Now,  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  one  thing  in  this  Creed.  I  do 
not  admire  it  m3'self ,  —  and  I  speak  with  thorough  respect  to  this 
tribunal,  and  to  the  authors  of  the  Andover  Creed,  and  all  con- 
cerned, —  but  it  is  there.  They  regarded  it  as  a  matter  concerning 
vital  Christian  truth,  the  relation  of  man  to  his  Maker  and  to  his 
fellow  men,  to  his  duty  and  his  destiny  ;  and  more  serious  topics, 
never  to  be  approached  but  with  gravity,  solemnity,  even,  of 
thought  and  utterance,  could  not  be  found.  And  when  I  am  upon 
the  question  of  how  much  importance  these  Founders  attached  to 
their  Creed,  in  connection  with  this  Institution.  I  ma}'  call  your 
attention  to  what  seems  to  me  a  marvellous  expression  of  it.  I 
doubt  whether  it  would  be  adopted  in  our  time  in  that  form,  or  in 
that  way.  It  is  at  the  beginning,  where  the  Professor  is  required 
to  be  a  Master  of  Arts,  discreet,  honest,  learned,  a  devout  Chris- 
tian and  ••  an  orthodox,  and  consistent  Calvinist ;  "  and  after 
careful  examination  by  the  Visitors  with  reference  to  his  religious 
principles,  he  shall,  on  the  day  of  his  inauguiation,  "publicly  make 


182 

and  subscribe  a  solemn  declaration  of  his  faith  in  divine  revelation. 
and  in  the  fundamental  and  distinguishing  doctrines  of  the  gospel, 
as  expressed  in  the  following  Creed,  which  is,"  —  not  which  are. 
and  the  verb  is  most  important  in  that  connection,  not  "  the  fun- 
damental and  distinguishing  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  which  are 
supported,"  but,  —  '"  the  fundamental  and  distinguishing  doctrines 
of  the  gospel  as  expressed  in  the  following  Creed,  which  is  sup- 
ported by  the  infallible  revelation  which  God  constantly  makes  of 
himself  in  His  works  of  creation,  providence  and  redemption." 

Well,  perhaps,  to  most  of  our  modern  habits  of  thought  and 
speech,  the  idea  which  that  literally  expresses,  that  the  thunders 
among  the  mountains,  the  roar  of  the  sea,  the  beauty  of  the 
dawn,  of  the  sunset,  and  of  the  starry  heavens,  are  the  infallible 
supporters  of  the  Andover  Creed,  would  not  be  the  style  of  ex- 
pression we  should  select,  but  it  is  worthy  of  attention  l)ecause  it 
points  out  so  strongly  what  these  Founders  meant,  and  how  they 
felt  about  the  Creed.  They  felt  that  they  had.  after  these  seven 
or  eight  months  of  reflection,  got  together  an  expression  of  the 
designs  of  God  in  creation,  in  the  continuance  of  the  race,  in 
the  redemption  of  man,  in  the  object  of  man's  existence,  in  the 
nature  of  all  the  relations  between  God  and  man,  and  man  and  his 
fellow  men,  so  explicit  and  clear  and  in  such  plain  language,  the 
best  that  the  country  and  the  times  afforded,  that  they  had  ex- 
hausted the  subject.  And  they  provided,  and  proceeded  formally 
to  provide,  that  that  was  to  be  retained  and  never  altered  in  any 
jot  or  tittle,  that  it  should  so  forever  be. 

On  such  a  proposition,  where  is  there  room  for  stating  rules  of 
construction  which  are  to  be  given  according  to  the  general  effect 
which  one  construction  or  the  other  might  produce  in  your  view 
of  what  ought  to  be  established  in  the  community?  The  argu- 
ment leads  at  once  to  an  absurdity.  It  is  said  that  the  Professor 
when  he  subscribes  to  this  Creed,  also  undertakes,  while  adhering 
to  all  these  and  other  doctrines  of  our  religion  which  are  not 
stated,  that  he  will  explain  the  Scriptures  and  teach  in  the  Semi- 
nary according  to  the  best  light  God  has  given  him.  Well,  that 
is  his  duty  as  a  Christian  man.  as  a  man  of  conscience.  But  did 
any  of  the  Founders  who  formed  that  Creed  ever  suppose  it  would 
be  possible  that  any  one  signing  that  Creed,  adopting  that  Creed, 
undertaking  to  teach  that  Creed,  not  to  be  altered  in  one  sentence 
or  letter  forever,  could  arrive  at  conclusions,  by  following  any 
light  that  God  should  give  him,  which  were  utterly  inconsistent 


183 

with  and  repugnant  to  it,  and  yet  continue  to  be  recognized  as  a 
proper  instructor  upon  the  foundation  ?  I  apprehend  not.  "What 
a  man  ma}'  do,  he  must  decide  between  himself  and  his  (iod  and 
his  fellow  men  for  himself.  Where  he  shall  do  it  is  not  iufre- 
quently  a  question  which  involves  the  rights  of  somebody  else. 
I  have  heard  of  an  English  gentleman,  said  to  be  converted  to 
Paganism  early  in  this  century,  who  complained  as  an  invasion  of 
his  libert}'  of  conscience,  and  as  persecution  for  his  religious 
opinions,  that  his  landlady  in  a  London  boarding-house  was  not 
willing  he  should  sacrifice  a  bull  to  Jupiter  in  her  back  parlor. 
As  an  illustration  that  is,  perhaps,  a  little  coarse,  but  it  applies 
here.  The  back  parlor  of  the  Andover  Founders  is  not  a  place  to 
teach  the  Christian  religion,  even,  if  it  does  not  conform  to  what 
they  say  is  the  Creed  which  God  in  His  works  of  providence,  crea- 
tion and  redemption  has  infallibly  shown  it  to  be.  They  did  not 
consider  as  the  Christian  religion  anything  which  was  repugnant 
to  that,  and  they  had  a  right  so  to  decide  for  themselves  and  their 
benefaction. 

The  question,  therefore,  Gentlemen,  as  it  has  been  stated  with 
great  accuracy  several  times,  comes  back  to  this :  You  are  to 
determine,  whether  under  the  articles  of  the  complaint  and  the 
specifications,  anj'thing  which  has  been  taught  and  inculcated  bj' 
this  Respondent  is  inconsistent  with  and  repugnant  to  the  Seminary 
Creed,  and  therefore  prohibited,  by  the  provisions  of  the  Founders, 
in  the  Seminary  teaching. 

I  entirely  agree  with  mj'  brethren  on  the  other  side  in  what  has 
been  said  as  to  the  rule  of  charitable  construction,  and  I  thought 
one  of  the  illustrations, — I  think  it  was  used  b}'  my  brother 
Russell,  —  was  pretty  good,  so  far  as  it  went.  He  said  the  Judges 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  each  take  an  oath  to 
support  the  Constitution,  and  that  they  sit  and  hear  cases  as  they 
come  before  them,  and  when  they  come  to  decide  some  constitu- 
tional question,  there  will  sometimes  be  four  on  one  side  and  five 
on  the  other,  but  that  nobody  thinks  of  charging  the  minority 
with  a  violation  of  trust,  or  of  a  breach  of  their  official  oath, 
because  they  did  not  coincide  with  the  views  of  the  majority. 
So  far  that  sounds  well,  and  so  far  I  have  nothing  to  object  to  in 
its  application  to  the  case  before  you. 

I  will  say  for  myself  once  for  all.  —  and  I  am  not  employed, 
certainly  1  am  sure  ni}^  clients  do  not  think  I  could  be  hired  to 
suppress   the  opinion  or  to    entertain   a   different   one, — that   I 


184 

listened  with  great  admiration  to  the  defence  of  Prof.  Smyth, 
and  that  I  look  upon  him  as  an  upright,  able,  conscientious. 
Christian  man,  eminently  so,  and  nothing  involved  m  this  case 
would  lead  me  to  question  it.  And  there  is  nothing  in  this  case 
which  involves  it.  There  may  be  suggestions  here  and  there,  as 
there  were  those  which  I  thought  very  unworthy  attacks  on  the 
prosecutors,  about  a  Professor  attempting  to  smother  or  to  con- 
ceal his  opinions,  to  hold  on  to  his  place,  or  something  of  that 
kind.  I  do  not  think  there  is  a  man  in  Massachusetts,  who  ever 
heard  of  him,  who  would  believe  or  would  suggest  such  a  thing. 
He  has  been  throughout  manly,  and  honorable,  and  frank,  l)efore 
you.  The  poor  statement  that  we  had  not  called  any  witnesses 
to  swear  that  they  ever  heard  him  say  such  things,  which  was 
intimated  by  one  of  his  counsel,  and  the  suggestion  that  we  had 
not  called  any  of  his  pnpils  to  show  that  these  things  were  taught 
in  the  lecture-room,  were  all  done  away  with  by  his  own  manly 
utterance  that  he  was  not  here  to  say  that  any  view  which  he  had 
entertained  and  published  on  important  theological  questions  did 
not  find  its  way  into  the  lecture-room.  That  is  not  the  question, 
let  me  repeat,  between  the  Visitors  and  the  Professor.  It  is  not 
the  question  whether  his  opinions  are  or  are  not  very  much  better 
than  those  of  the  Creed.  If  new  light  breaks  out  from  God's 
word,  in  the  phrase  of  Robinson,  or  if  in  teaching,  under  the 
injunction  of  the  Foundation,  according  to  the  best  light  that 
God  has  given  him,  he  teaches  something  which  is  for  the  world's 
interest,  and  the  interest  of  every  student  of  theology,  he  should  be 
welcomed  to  the  work  by  every  friend  of  religion  and  of  freedom. 
But  at  the  same  time  there  is  no  question  about  it  here.  The 
question  is  whether  that  is  to  be  preached  in  the  building  put  up 
by  the  donors'  money,  and  to  be  supported  by  their  funds,  when 
you  find  that  it  is  not  consistent  with,  but  that  it  is  a  new  thought 
which  disposes  of,  sets  aside,  vacates  the  foundation  upon  which 
they  built  their  Institution. 

There  is  no  breach  of  trust  suggested  against  Prof.  Smyth  l\v 
me,  and  there  has  not  been.  It  must  have  been  only  casually,  by 
inference,  if  it  has  ever  been  introduced  into  these  proceedings. 
We  never  expected  any  such  thing  would  be  done.  It  is  the  Board 
of  Visitors  that  for  the  first  time  will  commit  a  ifi-each  of  trust,  if, 
honestly  believing  on  full  and  careful  exammation  that  the  doc- 
trines taught  by  Prof.  Smyth  are  inconsistent  with  and  subversive 
of  the  Seminary  Creed,  they  do  not  say  so,  when  they  have  ac- 


185 

cepted  a  trust  which  requires  them  to  say  so.  The  coinplainants 
have  said,  undoubtedly,  many  times,  aud  lu  many  forms,  that  they 
consider  it  would  be  a  great  breach  of  trust  to  allow  the  Andover 
Institution,  founded  for  such  purposes,  and  with  such  limitations 
and  restrictions  as  it  was,  to  be  carried  on  by  teaching  what  is 
taught.  It  is  not  a  prosecution  for  heresy  ;  it  is  not  a  persecution 
of  any  individual  that  is  sought.  So  far  from  being  heretical, 
they  may  be  moral,  [>ious  and  Christian  to  any  extent.  That  is 
not  the  question  before  you.  Gentlemen,  as  you  sit  watching  the 
trepidations  of  the  balance.  Do  these  two  things  correspond?  I 
am  willing  to  allow  and  to  suggest  that  the  rule  of  charitable  con- 
struction shall  go  as  far  as  it  has  been  claimed  to  go,  in  some 
respects.  The  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  who  differs  from  his 
brethren,  from  the  time  the  opinion  is  announced  by  the  majority 
who  decide  the  law,  is  bound  l)y  it,  and  whenever  he  holds  a  couit 
in  tiie  country  he  has  got  to  rule  the  law  and  hold  the  law  as  the 
majority  have  decided  it.  If  he  is  not  prepared  to  do  that,  if  that 
decision  does  not  convince  his  mind  so  that  he  can  honestly  and 
fairly  state  it,  he  cannot  continue  to  go  on  with  his  judicial  office. 
I  think  we  had  in  Massachusetts  a  pretty  noticeable  example  once 
of  a  gentleman  by  the  name  of  Curtis,  who  was  a  member  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  who,  at  the  time  of  the  Dred- 
Scott  decision,  resigned  his  office  because  he  could  not  quite  stand 
the  constitutional  views  of  the  persons  there.  Beyond  that,  how- 
ever, I  am  willing  to  concede  to  this  rule  of  charitable  construction 
all  that  I  think  can  properly  be  asked  for  it. 

Now,  to  make  a  single  suggestion,  aud  with  absolute  respect, — 
I  have  not  had  an  opportunity,  and  I  do  not  know  as  I  should 
have  done  it  if  I  had,  to  ask  either  of  the  gentlemen  whether  what 
I  ini[)ly  is  not  true,  —  when  it  sa^'s  in  this  Creed  that  "  the  wicked 
will  wake  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt,  and  with  devils  be 
plunged  into  the  lake  which  burneth  witli  tire  and  brimstone  for 
ever  and  ever,"  I  might  ask,  do  the  Calvinist,  the  Orthodox  Con- 
gregationalists  of  the  present  day,  do  the  Presbyterians,  do  the 
members  of  this  Board  of  \'isitors,  believe  that  that  is  intended 
to  describe  some  literal  lake,  whatever  the  shores  of  such  a  lake 
might  be,  situated  somewhere,  and  consisting  of  what  we  find  so 
terrible  to  our  bodies,  if  they  get  into  it.  fire  and  brimstone?  I 
suppose  it  is  generally  understood  that  the  Christian  world,  most 
of  it,  at  least,  would  say  that  tliat  was  a  figurative  expression.  If 
I  am  wrong,  1  have  no  right  to  use  the  argument ;  but  it  is  in  the 


186 

interest  of  what  1  should  consider  to  be  the  proper  mode  of  con- 
struction. God's  wrath  against  wickedness,  the  punishment  of 
sin,  the  method  of  man's  redemption  and  salvation  being  the 
essentials,  if  upon  those  particulars  every  thing  is  agreed,  —  while 
an  unlearned  person  might  believe  Scripture  with  absolute  literal- 
ness  in  all  its  terms,  and  with  a  thoughtful  person  it  would  go 
without  saying  that  certain  expressions,  though  of  terrible  sub- 
stance and  import,  were  not  intended  to  be  a  literal  accouut  by  a 
personal  observer  of  a  physical  fact,  —  there  would  be  no  trouble 
in  explaining  the  Andover  Creed,  to  say  that  where  its  essence 
and  spirit,  the  rules  that  it  lays  down,  the  essential  things  it  con- 
tains, are  approved  and  adhered  to  in  instruction,  then  a  difference 
on  such  points  and  matters  would  be  immaterial. 

Probably  nobody  ever  heard  an  important  truth  stated  with 
exactly  the  same  comprehension  and  application  of  it  that  his 
next  neighbor  did,  who  heard  it  at  the  same  time.  There  is  an 
immense  diversity,  not  only  in  men's  comprehendiug,  but  in  their 
mental  perception  of  truth,  which  is  very  much  affected  by  culture 
and  reflection,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  And  within  any  such 
limits,  I  should  not  think  for  a  moment  that  this  tribunal  would 
entertain  this  complaint.  But  you  must  draw  a  Hue  somewhere. 
I  should  suppose  that  if  any  doctrine,  held  as  a  distinctive  doctrine 
by  the  interesting  company  of  persons,  not  intended  in  any  way 
to  be  approved,  commended  or  forwarded  by  the  Foundation  of 
the  Andover  Theological  Seminary,  who  seem  to  be  grouped  here 
at  the  end  of  the  Creed,  almost  on  the  principle  of  the  tares,  bind- 
ing them  in  bundles  to  burn  them,  —  "In  opposition  not  only  to 
Atheists  and  Infidels,  but  to  Jews,  Papists,  Mahometans,  Arians, 
Pelagians,  Antinomians,  Arminians,  Sociniaus,  Sabellians,  Unita- 
rians and  Universalists,  and  all  other  heresies  and  errors,"  —  I 
should  suppose  that  there  could  be  no  doubt  that  if  there  were 
anything  which  could  be  included  in  that  list,  which  could  be 
proved  and  established  in  this  theological  discussion  as  having 
been  taught  by  a  Professor  at  Andover,  you  would  have  no  diffi- 
culty about  it. 

Nor  should  3-ou  have  any  difficulty,  it  would  seem  to  me,  if  any- 
thing which  is  a  distinctive  doctrine,  as  it  was  understood  by  the 
Founders  ;  (and  it  hardly  needs  to  be  argued  here,  because  it  must 
have  been  understood  b}-  you  gentlemen  who  have  taken  the  sub- 
scription to  this  Creed,)  if  what  you  understood  as  essential  in  any 
part  of  this  Creed  is  contradicted  by  the  teaching  of  an  Andover 


187 

Professor,  I  submit  you  have  assumed  the  duty  that  you  will  by 
appropriate  methods  cause  that  to  cease.  Take  an  extreme  case, 
Papists.  There  have  been  some  remarkable  conversions,  starting 
with  New  England  Congregationalism  even,  to  the  Church  of 
Rome.  The  liberty  of  the  Church  of  Rome  is  as  dear  to  every 
American  citizen  as  that  of  any  other  church,  as  far  as  it  rests  on 
the  intelligent  choice  of  the  member  of  that  church.  Many  of  our 
objections  to  it  are  on  the  ground  that  it  does  not  consist  with 
personal  and  individual  liberty  :  but  so  far  as  that  goes  we  are  not 
now  taking  that  into  view.  Supposing  an  Andover  Professor, 
by  the  best  light  God  has  given  him,  should  conclude  that  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Mass  was  the  thing  which  was  required  to  be  en- 
couraged, and  that  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope  or  of  an  ecumeni- 
cal council,  —  I  do  not  mean  any  such  sort  of  council  as  Dr.  Dex- 
ter held  down  at  Plymouth,  but  one  of  the  Catholic  affairs,  —  was 
to  be  the  governing  force.  There  is  no  use  in  talking  about  whether 
that  could  be  taught  at  Andover  under  the  Creed. 

An  argument  has  been  submitted  to  j'ou  that  the  doctrine  held 
by  the  Respondent  amounts  substantially  to  what  was  taught  by 
the  head  of  the  Universalist  denomination  in  this  vicinity  at  the 
time  the  Creed  was  drawn  and  established.  Universalism  clearly 
could  not  be  taught  at  Andover  under  the  Creed.  No  charitable 
construction,  so  as  not  to  be  a  clog  on  a  teacher,  can  reach  the 
point.  It  is  a  question  of  where  3-ou  draw  the  line.  "Where  you 
come  to  anj'thing  which  this  Board  of  Visitors  regard  as  the  sub- 
stance of  Christian  doctrine,  as  expressed  in  the  Andover  Creed, 
and  the}'  find  that  the  teachings  in  the  Seminary  by  any  Professor 
are  in  contravention  or  open  disregard  of  that,  their  duty  under 
the  trust  which  they  have  assumed  arises,  and  is  to  be  performed. 

I  do  not  propose  to  go  into  a  single  theological  consideration  as 
to  whether  that  is  the  fact  or  not.  It  has  been  presented  to  you 
on  both  sides  with  great  ability.  I  certainh-,  speaking  for  my- 
self, should  be  very  much  inclined  at  once  to  say  '■^  non  nobis 
tantas  componere  lites."  I  should  get  out  of  m}'  depth  very 
easil}-.  There  have  been  ringing  through  my  head  in  my  dreams 
by  night  during  this  week  of  the  closing  hours  of  the  year,  some 
of  these  theological  phrases,  which  I  can  only,  as  my  personal 
wish,  hope  may  be  profitable  and  of  importance  to  the  people 
who  believe  in  them.  The  question  before  you  does  not  involve 
any  niceties  of  theological  discussion.  The  question  for  you  is, 
not  can  a  man  hold  such  and  such  a  view,  —  because  human  be- 


188 

ings  hold  all  sorts  of  views  and  every  variety  of  them,  —  but  can 
a  man,  a  Christian  man,  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  principles  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  iu  the  fear  of  God  and  devotion  to  Christ, 
reading  and  construing  fairly  this  body  of  doctrine,  and  believing 
and  adhering  to  it,  hold  a  particular  doctrine  which  it  is  proved 
that  he  does  hold?  With  all  reasonable  explanations,  with  all 
proper  charitable  constructions,  can  he  continue  in  good  faith  to 
inculcate  that  Creed,  and  at  the  same  time  the  doctrine  in  ques- 
tion? If  he  can,  your  duty  is  easy  and  pleasant.  If  he  cannot, 
it  is  3'our  duty  to  sa}'  so,  whether  pleasant  or  otherwise. 

1  have  been  asked  by  my  associate  to  make  a  little  comment 
upon  the  Norris  case.  You  will  see,  Gentlemen,  when  you  come 
to  look  at  this  case,  if  you  have  occasion  to  do  so,  that  it  is  as 
simple  a  case  as  ever  was.  and  has  no  application  of  the  kind 
which  is  made  by  our  friends  on  the  other  side.  In  the  Norris 
case  the  Court  had  before  them  the  original  Foundation  of  the 
Andover  Acadeni}',  —  nothing  to  do  with  the  Theological  School. 
That  Foundation  provided  for  the  instruction  of  the  youth  in 
virtue  and  in  piety,  and  in  certain  branches  of  secular  education. 
It  also  provided  that  as  there  might  l)e  youth  there  who  were 
seeking  to  enter  the  ministry,  they  should  have  instructions  in  the 
principles  of  the  Gospel,  a  certain  numl)er  of  doctrines,  three  or 
four,  which  at  that  time  were  considered  as  clearly  and  unques- 
tionably principles  of  the  Gospel,  according  to  all  [persons  having 
any  connection  with  Andover.  There  is  not  a  reference  in  it 
to  Calvin  or  Calvinism,  to  Hopkins  or  Hopkinsianism.  It  goes 
on  to  say  that  its  purpose  is  first,  to  teach  the  virtue  of  right 
living  to  the  young,  and  second,  to  teach  them  the  human  knowfl- 
edge  which  is  requisite  for  their  proper  success  in  life. 

On  that  is  grafted  afterwards  a  Theological  Seminary,  and  the 
Theological  Seminary  has  two  sets  of  suppoiters.  or  those  who 
wish  to  be  supporters,  and  they  make  a  compromise  in  adopting 
this  Creed.  Some  of  their  opinions  may  not  be  strictly,  theologi- 
cally, carefully  considered,  consistent  with  each  other.  The 
Hopkinsians  and  the  Calvinists  differed  undoulitedly  in  some 
particulars  which  we  can  now  make  out  in  the  distance.  The 
Supreme  Court  were  asked  on  behalf  of  the  heirs  of  the  lady  who 
gave  this  fund  to  the  Seminary,  to  say  that  Phillips  Academy, 
w^hich  was  the  corporation  to  which  the  Seminary  was  attached, 
could  not  take  it,  for  two  reasons :  One  was  that  a  coi-poration 
could  not  take  a  trust  of  that  kind  and  hold  it.     That  the  Court 


189 

disposed  of.  The  other  one,  and  the  only  one  which  has  been 
spoken  of  here,  was  that  tlie  opinions  held  in  the  Theological 
Seminary  were  such  that  giving  the  fund  to  that,  under  this  Creed, 
was  not  according  to  the  design  of  the  original  founders.  And  the 
counsel  made  the  mistake  of  supposing  that  the  original  P'ounders 
of  the  Theological  Seminary  were  intended,  and  the  subsequent 
Associate  Foundation  was  intended.  But  the  Court  say  no. 
Here  is  an  Academy  to  train  youth  in  i)iety  and  virtue,  and  to  give 
them  a  good  education,  and  it  has  a  provision  in  it  that,  as  some 
of  them  may  be  ministers  afterwards,  it  is  desirable  to  instruct 
them  in  the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  it  enumerates 
some  few  of  those.  And  now  you  argue  that  they  cannot  take  a 
fund  and  hold  it  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  in  the  education  of 
these  ministers,  because  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  design  of  the 
founders,  because  they  have  set  forth  these  few  articles.  And  the 
Court  say  that  on  reading  them  over  they  cannot  see  that  there  is 
anj-  inconsistency  betw-een  them.  It  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
the  original  design  of  the  Founders  that  young  men  should  be 
taught  and  carefully  instructed  in  piety  and  virtue,  and  in  getting 
a  good  literary  education  ;  and  that  they  shall  also  afterwards  be 
educated  for  the  gospel  ministry,  and  that  the  foubdation  may 
be  established  for  that  purpose  ;  that  there  is  no  doubt  that  is 
not  repugnant  to  the  design  of  the  Founders,  and  that  putting  in 
these  items  of  faith,  which  were  enumerated  to  be  taught  by  one 
teacher  in  the  Academy,  would  not  be  inconsistent,  as  far  as  they 
had  stated  it,  with  any  thing  either  in  Hopkinsianism  or  Calvinism. 
That  is  the  whole  that  case  decided.  And  what  application  has 
that  to  this  case?  It  sustained  a  charitable  becjuest  where  there 
was  no  reason  why  it  should  not  be  sustained.  The  question  here 
is  whether  the  doctrine  taught  corresponds  with  the  Creed  which 
you  have  before  you,  wuth  the  interpretation  which  you  think 
should  be  put  upon  it,  which  you  put  upon  it  yourselves.  That  is 
the  whole  practical  question,  as  I  have  said  before. 


THE  JUDGMENT  OF  THE  VISITORS. 


IX    THE    CASE    OF    PROFESSOR    SMTTH. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Visitors  of  the  Theological  Institution  in 
Phillips  Academy  in  Andover,  held  on  the  fourth  day  of 
June  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
eighty-seven,  the  complaint,  as  amended,  against  Egbert  C.  Smyth, 
D.  D.,  Brown  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  said  Institu- 
tion, the  answer  thereto,  the  evidence  laid  before  them,  and  the 
arguments  in  behalf  of  the  Complainants  and  Respondent,  were 
further  considered  by  the  Visitors,  and  they  find  that  said  Egbert 
C.  Smyth,  as  such  Professor,  maintains  and  inculcates  beliefs  in- 
consistent with,  and  repugnant  to.  the  Creed  of  said  Institution, 
and  the  Statutes  of  the  same,  and  contrary  to  the  true  intent  of 
the  Founders  thereof,  as  expressed  in  said  Statutes,  in  the  follow- 
ing particulars,  as  charged  in  said  amended  complaint,  to  wit :  — 

That  the  Bible  is  not  ''  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice," but  is  fallible  and  untrustworthy  even  in  some  of  its  reli- 
gious teachings ; 

That  no  man  has  power  or  capacity  to  repent  without  knowledge 
of  God  in  Christ ; 

That  there  is,  and  will  be,  probation  after  death  for  all  men 
who  do  not  decisively  reject  Christ  during  the  earthly  life. 

And  thereupon  they  do  adjudge  and  decree  that  said  Egbert  C. 
Smyth  be,  and  he  hereby  is,  removed  from  the  office  of  Brown 
Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  said  Institution,  and  said 
office  is  hereby  declared   vacant. 

Voted,  That  the  Secretary  notify  said  Egbert  C.  Smyth,  the 
Complainants,  and  the  Trustees  of  Phillips  Academy,  of  the  fore- 
going findings  and  action  thereon  by  the  Visitors. 

A  true  copy  of  Record. 

Attest:  W.  T.  EUSTIS,  Secretary. 

191 


192 


IN   THE    CASES    OF    PROFESSORS    TUCKER,    CHURCHILL,    HARRIS, 
AND    HINCKS. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Visitors  of  the  Theological  Institution  in 
Phillips  Academy  in  Andover,  held  on  the  fourth  day  of  June,  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  eighty -seven, 
before  proceeding  to  consider  the  several  complaints,  as  amended, 
against  William  J.  Tucker,  Bartlet  Professor  of  Sacred  Rhetoric  ; 
John  W.  Churchill,  Jones  Professor  of  Elocution  ;  George  Harris, 
Abbot  Professor  of  Christian  Theology  ;  and  Edward  Y.  Hincks, 
Smith  Prof essor  of  Biblical  Theology,  severally  in  said  Institution, 
Rev.  Mr.  Eustis  declined  to  act  thereon  with  his  associates,  upon 
the  ground  that  he  was  not  present  on  the  day  of  the  hearing  on 
said  complaints,  when  said  Respondents  severally  appeared  and 
made  their  statements  in  defence  thereto.  Thereupon  these  com- 
plaints, as  amended,  were  taken  up  and  severally  considered,  and 
none  of  the  charges  therein  contained  were  sustained. 

Voted,  That  the  Secretary  notify  these  Respondents  of  the  action 
of  the  Visitors  on  these  several  complaints  against  them. 

A  true  copy  of  Record. 

Attest:  W.  T.  EUSTIS,  Secretary. 


EEPORT  OF  THE  TRUSTEES. 


The  Trustees  issued  au  elaborate  paper,  Dr.  Wellman  alone 
dissenting,  of  which  the  following  is  a  summary  :  — The  Trustees 
regret  that  the  charges  against  the  Professors  were  not  prosecuted 
first  before  them,  and  claim  that  they  have  immediate,  and  the 
Visitors  only  supervisory  and  appellate,  jurisdiction  over  the 
Professors  ;  that  the  establishment  of  the  board  of  Visitors  was  as 
a  safeguard,  and  not  as  a  substitute  for  the  Trustees  ;  that  for 
the  Visitors  to  exercise  jurisdiction  in  matters  which  have  not 
been  passed  upon  by  the  Trustees  is  contrary  to  the  purpose  of 
the  Statutes  of  the  Founders  and  to  propriety  ;  that  this  case  was 
brought  first  before  the  Trustees  with  a  recjuest  that  they  invite 
the  Visitors  to  investigate  it,  which  was  denied  on  the  ground  that 
such  an  investigation  ought  to  be  made  by  the  Trustees  them- 
selves, if  at  all,  a  readiness  to  make  such  an  investigation,  upon 
the  proper  presentation  of  charges,  also  being  expressed  ;  that 
the  Trustees  should  have  been  recognized  by  the  Visitors  as  a 
party  in  the  trial  before  the  latter  ;  that  the  Jones  Professorship, 
held  by  Professor  Churchill,  is  not  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Visitors  at  all ;  that  an  utterance  should  be  made  by  the  Trustees 
for  the  sake  of  its  moral  weight;  that  the  charges  against  the 
Professors  are  not  sustained  ;  that  the  question  at  issue  is  not 
whether  the  views  and  teachings  of  the  Professors  are  contrary  to 
historic  creeds,  or  to  the  creeds  of  the  Churches  in  Eastern 
Massachusetts  when  the  Seminary  was  founded,  or  to  any  of  the 
known  views  of  the  Founders,  but  whether  they  are  contrary  to 
the  views  which  the  Founders  embodied  in  the  Creed  of  the 
Seminary  ;  and  that  this  Creed  is  to  be  interpreted  according  to 
the  ordinary  rules  of  creed  interpretation  and  to  the  liberal  usage 
which  began  in  the  lifetime  of  the  Founders,  has  continued  to  this 
day,  and  only  because  of  which  could  either  the  Founders  them- 
selves or  the  former  Professors  have  signed  the  Creed.     Several 


la; 


194 

of  the  charges  against  the  Professors  then  are  considered  specific- 
ally, namely:  the  firsts  of  holding,  etc.,  that  the  Bible  is  not 
the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  but  is  fallible  and  un- 
trustworthy, even  in  some  of  its  religious  teachings  ;  the  third,  of 
holding,  etc.,  that  no  man  has  power  or  capacity  to  repent  without 
knowledge  of  the  historic  Christ;  the  sixth,  of  holding,  etc.,  that 
the  atonement  of  Christ  consists  essentially  and  chiefly  in  His  be- 
coming identified  with  the  human  race  through  His  incarnation, 
in  order  that,  by  His  union  with  men.  He  might  endow  them  with 
the  power  to  repent,  and  thus  impart  to  them  an  augmented  value 
in  the  view  of  God,  and  so  propitiate  God  to  men  and  men  to 
God ;  and  the  eleventh,  of  holding,  etc.,  that  there  is,  and  will  be, 
probation  after  death  for  all  men  who  have  not  in  this  world  had 
knowledge  of  the  historic  Christ.  It  is  attempted  to  refute  these 
charges,  and  the  document  closes  with  an  expression  of  sympathy 
for  the  Professors. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  C4LIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


lK«6 


4Vv.n'^ 


r***' 


J^l^^ 


W  STACK?   tllNkUjwij.^ 

OCT  "i  -^  ^962 


v^ 


u*'. 


.^, 


'161  f 


1977     # 


REG.  ^ 


.K,     j^H    B7S 


«ECOLD    APR -4  72-1  PM  9  5 


LD  21-100m-9,'48(B399sl6) 


Rlio  LD    MAY  l*^Ll  PM  a  4 

399sl6)476  N 


[And over  th 

eological 

n\j\j  1  n\j 

senii!iar\ 
The   Andover 

1 

cese 

i 

1 

1 

M 117778 


BV4670    . 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


y 


